National Green Tribunal
Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha vs Maharashtra State Power Generation ... on 5 January, 2026
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha
Through its President,
Omprakash Jajodia, 1/B, Canal Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440 010.
2. Kisan Manch
Through its General Secretary,
Pratap Goswami, 22 Ambazari Layout,
Nagpur- 440 033.
3. Shri Pradyumna Sahasrabhojanee,
35/B, Hindustan Colony,
Amraoti Road, Nagpur- 440 033.
.....Applicants
Versus
1. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (Mahagenco)
Through the Chairman & Managing Director
Prakashgad, 2nd Floor, Plot No. G-9,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road,
Delhi- 110 003.
3. State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai - 400 032.
4. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB)
Through its Member Secretary
Kalpataru Point, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Opp. PVR Cinema, Sion Circle,
Mumbai-400 022.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advocate
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 1 of 46
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Raghunath Mahabal, Advocate along-with
Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocate for R-1/PP
Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate for R-2/MoEF&CC
Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-4/MPCB
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 12.11.2025
Pronounced on : 05.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This Original Application has been filed with the prayers that a direction may be issued that all conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance letter dated 04.01.2010 and 23.03.2017 issued to Respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. for operating 3x660 MW units, viz., Units 8, 9 and 10 of the Koradi Thermal Power Station, Nagpur be implemented in letter and spirit which includes Green Belt Development, use of treated sewage water, utilisation of fly ash and other conditions; a direction may be issued to Respondent No.1 for shifting its location of power plant by 2350 meters without seeking fresh Environmental Clearance for new location; a direction may be issued for time bound installation of Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) in accordance with the Environment Clearance of 2010 and in accordance with the Emission Norms of 2017, etc.
2. This Original Application has been filed raising substantial question relating to the environment arising out of non-compliance of the conditions of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010 and its Amendment dated 23.03.2017 granted to Respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Power ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 2 of 46 Generation Company (Mahagenco) for operating 3x660 MW units, viz., Units 8, 9 and 10 of the Koradi Thermal Power Station, Nagpur.
3. It is further mentioned in this application that the EC dated 04.01.2010 was valid for a period of 5 years to start operations by the power plant, as per Specific Condition (5) of said EC. Respondent No.1 thereafter, applied for extension of validity of EC, which was granted by Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC vide letter dated 27.03.2015, thereby extending the validity of EC till 30.06.2016 to start the operations. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 amended the EC Conditions vide letters dated 23.03.2017 and 29.05.2018 respectively. The said Environment Clearance letters were issued to Respondent No.1 as required under the EIA Notification, 2006. But Respondent No.1 has violated the Environmental Clearance conditions dated 04.01.2010 and its Amendment dated 23.03.2017 by shifting its permitted location about 3 kilometers towards highly populated Nagpur City; by failing to install Flue Gas Desulphurization unit, thereby failing to maintain the ambient air quality standards; by not complying with mandatory 100% fly ash utilization as statutorily required; by dumping fly ash into the bunds without any HDPE/ LDPE lining, in violation of the statutory requirement; by failing to utilize sewage water and instead utilizing fresh water for its operations; and by failing to develop the green belt as specified in the EC.
4. It is further mentioned in this application that Koradi Thermal Power Station (KTPS) is a 2400 MW Thermal Power Plant, which is located at Koradi, near Nagpur City, Nagpur District, Maharashtra, its operation commenced in the year 1974, and it has ten (10) units, out of which five (5) units were running at the time of filing the present Original Application. The unit numbers 1 to 5 were closed down. The present petition pertains to non-compliance of EC conditions by Units 8, 9 and 10 only. Respondent ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 3 of 46 No.2- MoEF&CC had granted EC for expansion of KTPS to include 3X660 MW units (Unit 8, 9 and 10) vide letter dated 04.01.2010. On the basis of the said EC, Units 8, 9 and 10 started commercial operation on 16.12.2015, 22.11.2016 and 17.01.2017 respectively.
5. It is further mentioned in this application that Geographical Coordinates of the plant was Latitude 21°14' 20" N, Longitude 790 06' 56"
E and the Ground Level Concentrations, GLCs of SPM, Sulphur di Oxide and Oxides of Nitrogen were predicted for proposed and existing units. This description about the location of 3 x 660 MW Thermal Power Project is given in the document of public hearing held on December, 2008. After conducting the public hearing, the Project Proponent submitted proposal in July 2009 along-with filled questionnaire, CD of proceedings of Public Hearing and EIA/EMP report to Respondent No.2-MoEF&CC for grant of Environmental Clearance which was issued on 04.01.2010. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 by letter dated 27.03.2015 extended the validity of EC till 30.06.2016, however, the unit no.10 was commissioned on 17.01.2017 without obtaining any further extension. The source of coal was also changed from Machhakata Coal mines to WCL and SECL Coal mines.
6. It is further mentioned in this application that the Project Proponent has not constructed the Thermal Power Plant in question at the location which was shown in the document submitted for public hearing. In fact, it is located about to 2.3 kms. away from the place, which was shown in the documents during public hearing. Its location is shifted from Geographical coordinates of Latitude 210 14' 20" N and Longitude 79° 06' 56" E to coordinates of Latitude 21° 14' 9.096" N and Longitude 79° 05' 37.644" E which is about 2350 meters from declared location. No fresh EC was obtained for the changed location.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 4 of 46
7. It is further mentioned in this application that as per the EC dated 04.01.2010 in para no.4(i), it was mandatory for Respondent No.1 to install Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) with one unit of 660MW, and provision for installation for FGD was to be made in all units. However, Respondent No.1- Mahagenco has repeatedly attempted to evade the responsibility of installing FGD in any of the three units of 660 MW, despite such being mandated by the EC dated 04.01.2010. Such non- compliance has been noted on multiple occasions in the various compliance reports submitted by Respondent No.1. The compliance report of 2016, which was submitted to Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC on 14.03.2016 by Respondent No.1, would make it clear that no installation of FGD had been undertaken despite several years having passed since the grant of EC dated 04.01.2010. Accordingly, the said Compliance Report reported as below:-
"Spaces provision is already made for FGD in all three units. After commissioning of the first unit, ambient air quality will be monitored at selected locations for prediction in GLC. AAQ will also be monitored at Nagpur to ascertain the air quality throughout the year to ensure ambient air quality within limit during operation of the proposed plant. In future, if it is found that proposed plant operation is causing significant impact on ambient air quality of Nagpur city then FGD will be installed."
8. It is further mentioned in this application that Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC issued Notification dated 07.12.2015 regarding revised emission standards for PM, SO2, NO2 and Hg for Thermal Power Plants in India, as per which all Thermal Power Plants shall meet the limits as mentioned herein within two years from the date of publication, i.e. 07.12.2015. Accordingly, the EC dated 04.01.2010 was amended by letter dated 23.03.2017. However, no action was taken by Respondent No.1 with ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 5 of 46 respect to installation of FGD for any of the 3x660 MW units. Thereafter, Respondent No.1- Mahagenco submitted Compliance Report dated 29.01.2018 to Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC, as follows:-
"As per Amendment of the MoEF Clearance Dt. 23/03/2017 (i), Ministry's Notification 50 3305 (E) E (P) Amendment Rules, 2015 dated 7/12/2015 regarding revised emission standards for PM, S02, NOx and Hg shall be complied with and the same shall be achieved within two years from the date of publication i.e. 07/12/2017 As per the new amended direction by the CPCB vide reference B 33014/07/2017-18/IPC-II/TPP/ 15905 dt. 11.12.2017 the plant shall install FGD by December 31, 2020 for Unit#10. However, tender are invited for installation of FGD for Koradi Unit No.10 on EPC Basis (Tender Code 45876)"
9. It is further mentioned in this application that again Compliance Report dated 16.07.2019 was submitted by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2, wherein following was stated:-
"MSPGCL board have accorded approval for floating of Tender for providing of FGD to all three units of Koradi 3x660 MW Thermal power plant"
10. It is further mentioned in this application that Respondent No.1- Mahagenco has submitted the same reasons regarding floating of Tender for several years, without taking any concrete action in ensuring compliance of Specific Condition 4(i). Despite several years having passed since the commencement of operations of the impugned KTPS 3x660 Units, no action has been taken till date with regard to installation of FGD and that no Compliance Report is available online after 2019. As on date, no FGD has been installed for KTPS.
11. It is further mentioned in this application that the non-compliance of Mahagenco was observed in the 32nd EAC- Thermal Meeting dated ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 6 of 46 23.08.2019. Mahagenco has not only been complying with the mandatory environmental clearance condition, rather it has been repeatedly requesting the MoEF&CC for waiver of the condition despite the fact that such a large power plant is in close proximity to the city of Nagpur and it is bound to have a detrimental impact on the health of the people besides being a breach of the statutory law. The KTPS has approached the authorities multiple times to do away with the requirement of installation of FGD, but the same has been denied, despite which, there is no FGD installed by KTPS in any of the units till date. Such non-installation of FGD is an even more severe issue, in light of the violations of excessive SO2 emissions from the impugned Thermal Power units. As per the said Meeting of EAC-Thermal dated 28.05.2019, the EAC has observed that the SO2 and NOx emission levels were beyond the permissible limits.
12. It is further mentioned in this application that Respondent No.4- Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has carried out Environmental Audit of the impugned thermal power plant and submitted a Report dated 02.07.2019, wherein following levels of SO2 Emissions were observed:-
"
Air (Stack) Quantity Concentrations Permissible Standard Pollutants of Pollutants of (Mg/NM3) Details discharged Pollutants (kL/day) Discharged (Mg/NM3) SO2 (Unit 8) 78694 1446 200 SO2 (Unit 9) 74881 1394 200 SO2 (Unit 10) 76193 1412 200 "
13. Above chart would indicate that Respondent No.1- Mahagenco is releasing highly noxious gases of SO2 in huge quantities, which is likely to ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 7 of 46 have an adverse effects on the health and safety of the residents living in the nearby villages and highly populated Nagpur city, which is itself 4-5 kms. from the impugned thermal power plant.
14. It is further mentioned in this application that the EC dated 04.01.2010 also mandates that the impugned thermal power units must ensure 100% fly ash utilization from the 4th year of its operation. As per the MoEF&CC Notification dated 03.11.2009, which amended the provisions of the Fly Ash Notification, 1999, provided the quantity of fly ash that a power plant is mandated to utilize from the year of commencement to four years unto operation. The said provision is quoted herein below:-
"(3) New coal and, or lignite based thermal power station and, or expansion units commissioned after the notification to achieve the target of fly ash utilization as per the Table III given below:
Table III:
"
15. It is further mentioned in this application that the Project Proponent repeatedly failed in adhering to the Fly Ash Notification dated 03.11.2009, as well as the Specific Condition 4(vii), as per the MPCB's report dated 11.10.2019 titled 'Annual Implementation Report for the year 2018-2019 for implementation of provisions of notification regarding utilization of ash generated from Coal and lignite based Power plants in Maharashtra'. With ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 8 of 46 regard to the impugned thermal power plant, the Annual Implementation Report would clearly show that for the year 2018-2019, the impugned thermal power plant has generated 26,43,276 MT of Fly Ash and utilized merely 7,75,245 MT thereof, which means it utilized 29.3% of the total fly ash generated, which is lower than the desired fly ash utilization levels.
16. It is further mentioned in this application that based on recent data available on the MAHAGENC0 website, the quantity of fly ash generated and utilized by units 8, 9 and 10 from January 2020 to May 2021 is given in tabulated as below:-
"3*660 MW:
Month ESP Fly Ash Utilized Percentage
and Bottom (MT) Utilized
Ash
Generated
(MT)
June 2020 52917 0 0
October 257745 1837 0.7
2020
December 203705 343 0.1
2020
January 326270 5553 1.7
2021
April 2021 222951 536 0.2
May 2021 108702 139 0.1
"
17. The above chart would show that the impugned thermal power plant failed to take any effort to ensure utilization of fly ash to the extent of 100% because as per the Fly Ash Notification of 2009, at least 50% of fly ash must be used within one year of commissioning of the plant; 70% within two years and 90% within three years, and 100% within four years of operating. The three impugned units, viz., Unit 8, 9, and 10, have been operational since 16.12.2015, 22.11.2016, 17.01.2017 respectively. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 9 of 46 Therefore, all three units have been operational for more than four years, therefore, there ought to have utilized 100% fly ash as of July 2021.
18. It is further mentioned in this application that MoEF&CC's Inspection Report dated 17.07.2017 would clearly show that no requisite lining of Ash pond with High Density Polymer (HDP) or Low Density Polymer (LDP) has been undertaken by Mahagenco, despite its utilization of Ash pond for dumping of ash for several years. Therefore, the Project Proponent is liable to pay Environmental Compensation as per the Polluter Pays Principle. Accordingly, the Environmental Compensation Regime, as has been evolved by this Tribunal in the matter of Original Application No.117 of 2014 titled Shantanu Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., would be applied here, wherein this Tribunal has held vide order dated 20.11.2018 as follows:-
"33. We are of the view that a Joint Committee of the representatives of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Central Pollution Control Board and IIT Roorkee and any other member considered necessary by MoEF&CC needs to be forthwith constituted to finalize action plan covering all aspects so as to not only achieve 100% utilization of fly ash but also to ensure its scientific and environmentally sound disposal. The Committee will also be required to determine the amount of damages to be paid for the violation of requirement of utilization of fly ash. Needless to say that statutory authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 are entitled to assess and recover damages on Polluter Pay's Principle' in exercise of incidental powers to protect environment The Committee may determine any other allied or incidental issue.
34. Accordingly, we direct constitution of such a Committee by the MoEF&CC forthwith. The Committee may give its report ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 10 of 46 within two months from the date of its assuming charge to the MoEF&CC.
35. The report of the Committee may be complied with by all concerned, subject to any challenge to such report, in accordance with law. 36. Pending submissions of such report, we direct all Thermal Power Stations who have failed to dispose of 100% fly ash up to 31.122017, to deposit damages for environment restoration as follows:
37. The above amount may be deposited with the CPCB within one month from today, failing which interest CP 12% p.a. will be payable for the delayed period. The amount may be spent on restoration and restitution of the environment."
19. It is further mentioned in this application that at least, the Project Proponent should be made liable to pay the cost of damages of Rs.5 Crores for non-utilization of fly ash, as the capacity of the impugned thermal power plant exceeds 1000 MW.
20. As per the Environmental Clearance condition, a Green Belt consisting of 3 tier of plantation of native species around plant and at least 100m width is required to be raised, as per Specific Condition 4(xviii). Further, the tree density shall not be less than 2500 per ha. with survival rate less than 70%.
21. It is mentioned in this application that in the Mahagenco Compliance Report dated 29.01.2018, it is stated that 3,815 trees have been planted in and around 3 x 660 MW Koradi Ex-Project up to ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 11 of 46 December 2017. Therefore, it is clear that the Project Proponent failed to adhere to the Specific Condition 4(xviii), as no Green Belt Development has been undertaken as envisioned therein. There is no mention of three tier plantation in its response. Even if, the figure of 3815 trees is accepted, the same is less than the number of trees in even two hectares of land since the Environment Clearance letter states that there must be a minimum of 2500 trees per hectare.
22. It is further mentioned in this application that KTPS is not permitted to use fresh water for operation of the plant, rather it is only permitted to use treated water from the Sewage Water Treatment Plant as stipulated in para no.2 of the EC dated 04.01.2010, which indicates that the water, that flows through the sewerage network of Nagpur City, must be sent to the STP and after being treated, it should be sent to the impugned thermal power plant, but instead of that, it has constructed a Weir over Nag River and the river water is pumped to Bhandewadi STP and then to Koradi Power Plant.
23. It is further mentioned in this application that Respondent No.4- MPCB mandated not to issue any Consent to Operate until Synchronization of STP to the impugned thermal power plant's operations as per the order dated 20.09.2011 in Krushi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. v. MoEF & Ors. (Appeal No. 7 of 2011), wherein the Tribunal considered the Appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance granted for the expansion of the impugned power plant and directed as follows:-
"The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall direct the proponent to synchronize the commissioning of the project with that of the Sewage Wastewater Treatment plant, treated water from which is proposed to be used for the operation of the project. Until, there is such synchronization, no Consent to Operate shall ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 12 of 46 be issued by the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board and the Board shall monitor the mitigating measures suggested in the Environmental Clearance."
24. As of now, 135 MLD of water from Nag River has been allotted for KTPS. Thus, even though it claims that only 23% of its water requirement is met by fresh water, in reality the entire water requirement of KTPS is met by fresh water.
25. It is further mentioned in this application that though the water for the power plant comes from Bhandewadi STP, the water, that is treated in the Bhandewadi STP and sent to KTPS, is fresh water from Nag River. Hence, it is submitted that Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC may be directed to revoke the impugned EC dated 04.01.2010 as amended on 23.03.2017 owing to gross malfeasance on the part of Project Proponent in carrying out operations in the impugned thermal power plant. Hence, the above prayers are made.
26. This matter was first considered by this Tribunal on 14.09.2021 when it was admitted and notices were issued to the Respondents.
27. In compliance to the above notice, Respondent No.4- MPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 09.11.2021, wherein it is submitted that the Answering Respondent has granted renewal of Consent to Operate to Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 08.07.2020 which was valid up to 31.08.2021. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 applied for renewal of consent to operate which is under consideration.
28. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that Respondent No.1 obtained Environmental Clearance for expansion of the project by replacement of existing four units of 120 MW by 1 x 660 MW and addition of 2 X 660 MW from the MoEF&CC vide letter dated ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 13 of 46 04.01.2010, which was revalidated with additional conditions vide letters dated 27.03.2015 and 23.03.2017 respectively. Subsequently the Environmental Clearance was revalidated on 29.05.2018 for transportation of coal by closed pipe conveyor. The Answering Respondent vide letter dated 19.06.2019 had issued directions under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to Respondent No.1 and directed to achieve the standards prescribed under the Notification dated 07.12.2015, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, to submit time bound program for implementation of the directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for installation of FGD, NOX reduction solutions, upgradation of retrofitting of ESP, time bound program for utilisation/ disposal of legacy pond ash, upload ash generation & utilisation data on ASHTRACK system, to achieve the designed station Heat Rate to reduce specific coal consumption, and for reduction of pollution load & other.
29. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that the Answering Respondent also issued directions under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for action plan for compliance of specific water consumption standards laid down by the MoEF&CC, GOI within the stipulated time period. The officials of the Answering Respondent visited the site of Respondent No.1 on 26.10.2021 for checking the compliances of consent conditions as well as Environment Clearance conditions, in which following non-compliances were observed:-
"
A. Huge Quantity of dust spread near Ash unloading point near silo Bunker.
B. Reading of OCEMS attached to stack of Unit No.8 was showing SO2 - 1412.18 at 18.40 p.m, connected to MPCB/CPCB server.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 14 of 46 C. FGD is not provided, as per consent condition No.21 and as per EC Conditions.
D. MAHAGENCO has not submitted BG Sr.No.1 to 11 as per the Consent conditions.
E. HDPE/LDPE Lining not provided at Ash Bund site."
30. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that pursuant to the site inspection, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Project Proponent on 02.11.2021 for the non-compliances. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 has provided Air Pollution Control System Electrostatic Precipitator to each unit with tri-flue stacks of 275 meters. Efficiency of Electrostatic Precipitator is 99.9 % for particulate matter not more than 50 mg/Nm3. Online Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (OCEMS) are provided for TPM, SO2 & NOx for each stack and are connected to the CPCB/MPCB's servers.
31. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that to control fly ash concentration, Respondent No.1 has provided Silo for collection of Dry Fly ash having capacity of 1500 MT. Fly ash utilisation for the year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 was 59.06 %, 28.79 %, 12.81 %, 29.33 %, 42.95 %, & 80.96 % respectively. Legacy ash dump in Koradi Ash Bund for a period up to 30.09.2021 is 1,46,98,634 MT, whereas in Khasara Ash Bund is 1,69,95,826 MT.
32. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that the source of water for the expansion unit is supplied from the Pench project which comes under the Irrigation Department, Govt. of Maharashtra. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation has provided and commissioned two Sewage Treatment Plant of capacity of 130 MLD & 200 MLD. Project Authority has made MoU with corporation authority for utilisation of treated sewage of Nagpur city through 130 MLD & 200 MLD dated 04th ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 15 of 46 October, 2008 & 20th November, 2018 respectively. The Answering Respondent has further submitted that Effluent Treatment Plant of capacity of 12,000 CMD for treatment of effluent is reused for ash handling process. Further, treated sewage water from sewage treatment Plant of capacity of 25 KLD is being used for gardening purpose.
33. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that as far as the plantation aspect is concerned, out of total area of the project, 67.3% area is covered under plantation. The total number of trees planted till March 2021 is 5,84,927 which is of various species i.e. Umber, Sisam, Gulmohar, Pipal, Chinch, Kadunimb, Mango. Density of plantation is 2,183 plants/Hectare.
34. Respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. has filed reply affidavit dated 04.06.2022 (in the 1st page of reply, date is mentioned to be 21.07.2022) before this Tribunal on 22.07.2022, wherein it is submitted that the allegations made by the applicants in the present Original Application against the Answering Respondent are baseless, as most of the EC conditions are fulfilled and the remaining few conditions are in the process of being fulfilled, for which concrete action plan is submitted to Respondent No.2-MoEF&CC.
35. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the geographical location of the plant has been shifted to Latitude 210 14' 9" N and Longitude 790 05' 37" E from 210 14' 20" N and 790 06' 56" E is contended. By quoting the single geographical coordinates, the shifting of location cannot be determined. This is an expansion project as the plant is constructed on already acquired land and under the possession of MAHAGENCO.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 16 of 46
36. With respect to flue gas desulphurisation units not having been installed, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the tenderization process has been completed; LOA (Letter of Agreement) has been put up for approval of the Board. The minimum time required for installation of Wet Limestone FGD is about 26 to 30 months. Considering the impact caused over the last two years, as a result of the pandemic, the due date of December 2022, as per the MoEF&CC's Notification dated 31.03.2021, is not achievable and delay of a few months is estimated. The tenderization process has been completed. The detailed chronology for installation of FGD is given in this para from point nos.(a) to (d).
37. With respect to Fly ash utilization, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the description of the same is given in tabular form, as below:-
"
"
38. Beneath the above table, a justification is given as to why the 100% ash utilization target could not be achieved, which is due to corona pandemic and monsoon season.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 17 of 46
39. With respect to allegation regarding dumping of fly ash into the bunds without any HDPE/LDPE lining, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that EIA Koradi TPS (3×660 MW) is using the already existing bund for ash disposal. No new bund has been constructed. The ash bund was live when it started using it, hence the work of HDPE/LDPE lining cannot be taken up in hand, but all the precautionary measures are being taken. No breaching of bund or overflow of ash water over bund was observed. To avoid the percolation of any leachates, the dyke walls of both the bunds are protected by carrying out stone pitching. Also, efforts are being taken to maintain uniform distribution of water. Three drain wells are being maintained inside the bund and water is recovered through a waste weir. Waste weirs are constructed across the periphery of the ash bund to collect the supernatant water downstream for recycling and reuse. Accordingly, the Answering Respondent requested Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC to amend the EC condition for HDP lining to Khasara bund and so also the condition of Consent to Operate via letter dated 16.02.2022. TPS MAHAGENCO has initiated the proposal for HDP lining to Koradi Bund.
40. With respect to allegation that the Project Proponent failed to utilize sewage water and instead utilizing freshwater for its operations, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that MAHAGENCO agreed with NMC for 30 years for utilization of provided sewage water and thereafter, it is using treated sewage water for cooling purposes. The plant is commissioned in the year 2017 and tertiary water is being utilized since that date. The operation and maintenance of the Bhandewadi STP are being carried out by Koradi TPS, 3×660MW. It is further submitted that the Koradi TPS is using freshwater from Pench Dam as per the agreement ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 18 of 46 with WRD, GoM for preparing DM water and domestic water which is only 6-8% of the total water requirement of Koradi TPS.
41. With respect to allegation regarding developing the green belt as specified in the EC, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that during the construction of Units, Koradi TPS has taken massive tree plantations as a social obligation. Available open land for plantation is 400.44 Hectares, out of which the total area covered under plantation is 270.40 Hectares, i.e. 67.52 %. The total progressive number of trees planted up to 31.03.2022 is 5,93,927. The Answering Respondent has engaged M/s National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur (NEERI) since February 2018 for the development of a bamboo green belt for dust suppression at TPS premises using eco-rejuvenation technology. 3 tier plantations at Koradi TPS are not feasible, as no land is acquired for TPS activities and the available land was having established structures at the place already. 10,000 numbers of tree plantation at the ash bund area is proposed for compliance of EC condition of 3 tier tree plantation. 40,000 trees are to be planted in the next 3 years around plant area including bund.
42. With respect to the averments in the reply affidavit dated 09.11.2021 and additional affidavit dated 10.02.2022 filed by Respondent No.4- MPCB regarding various actions taken against the KTPS for the alleged violations and the forfeiture of the BG of Rs 25 Lakhs via letter dated 15.12.2021 for JVS exceedance, it is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the said action has been challenged by the Project Proponent before the Appellate Authority as per the provision of statutory appeal and is still pending consideration. The Answering Respondent has submitted that these actions of MPCB too were taken without considering the compliances made by it and the facts on the ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 19 of 46 ground. The Answering Respondent was diligently doing the environmental monitoring through the third party, NABL Accredited, ISO 9001, 14001, 18001, IMS Certified, and MoEF&CC Recognized environmental laboratory at all times. It has been unscrupulously doing this monitoring all around the year, as per conditions of the 'Consent to Operate' and also as per CPCB/ MoEF&CC's Guidelines and requirements of 'Environmental Clearance'. Further, the condition of using raw or blended, or beneficiated coal with ash content less than 34% was extracted from Notification dated 02.01.2014. However, this Notification was replaced by a new revised Notification of MoEF&CC dated 21.05.2020, cognizance of which was taken by the MPCB while renewing the KTPS's consent to operate. This would have avoided the further process of forfeiture of Bank Guarantee. The unreasonable conditions stipulated in the 2014 Notification are substituted by the provisions of the 2020 MoEF&CC Notification dated 21.05.2020. In this context, Answering Respondent states that they are taking all the required efforts under the Notification and therefore, there is no reason to forfeit the Bank Guarantee of Rs.25.0 lakhs towards non- compliance of consent conditions, for JVS exceedance and for not using the coal with ash content less than 34%.
43. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the above allegation of applicants is not maintainable in view of the compliance made by the Project Proponent. The allegation does not stand the test as per the Section 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is further mentioned that there is no 'substantial question related to the environment', when the Project Proponent carried out the expansion of its plant on the already acquired land and under the possession of MAHAGENCO or where it has initiated the installation of FGD which is stalled, as a result of COVID 19 Pandemic and consequent lockdowns or ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 20 of 46 when the Project Proponent has taken adequate steps for disposal of fly ash voluntarily or when the Project Proponent is using STPs and reprocessing the treated water or when it has ensured that total 67.52 % area is covered under plantations and total number of trees planted up to 31.03.2021 is 5,93,927.
44. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the entire application and the causes stated in it are barred by limitation, as the present application was filed by the Applicants on 11.09.2021 against non-compliance with the conditions of EC dated 04.01.2010 and 23.03.2017. As per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, six months' period is prescribed, within which an application may be brought from the date when the cause of action first arose. In the case in hand, the cause of action first arose when the EC was granted to the Project Proponent i.e., on 04.01.2010. However, the Applicants have applied trick before this Tribunal by representing that the application is within the period of limitation by mentioning the date of amended EC which is 23.03.2017. Even if this date is considered to be the date of cause of action first arose, the application has surpassed the period of limitation as well as the period permitted to condone the delay. The Applicants knowing this took the help of the umbrella principle of "recurring cause of action", with a false view that somehow his application will get accepted. However, if one looks objectively, it will be clear that the applicants have tried to create confusion as regards facts, cause of action, remedies, and prayers sought and have led the Tribunal astray by these incoherent details.
45. It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the application is full of causes. The averments or the bundle of averments cannot make one single cause. Rule 14 of the National Green Tribunal ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 21 of 46 (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 provides that an application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided that they are consequential to one another. Therefore, there is no such provision to allow a bundle of facts as one single cause. Hence, the application can be considered only after the irrelevant portion is trimmed and only one single cause may be taken up for further adjudication. In view of above facts, Respondent No.1 has prayed that the present Original Application may be dismissed.
46. Respondent No.4- MPCB has also filed additional affidavit dated 27.02.2023, wherein it is submitted that the Answering Respondent along- with the representative of Respondent No.1 visited the Thermal Power Plant in question on 05.01.2023, in which following were observed:-
"
a) During inspection, Koradi Thermal Power Plant of Respondent No.1 was found in operation in generation of electricity. Respondent No.1 had applied for renewal of consent to operate for unit nos.8, 9 and 10 in capacity of 1980 MW under RED /LSI category for manufacturing of electricity generation (3x660) unit no 8, 9 and 10.
b) Regarding installation of FGD, the authority informed that the tender for installation of FGD for above all three units are under process at H.O. level.
c) Respondent No.1 has installed ESP (Electrostatic precipitator) and Air pollution control system having design capacity 99.9 % efficient ESP. TPS authority informed that TPS has taken work of stitch welding vent line modification and door modification of ESP fields of all three units and same is completed recently.
d) Respondent No.1 has installed with tangentially fired low NOx burners at all three units, which controls the emission of NOx.
e) During visit legacy ash was found at khasala ash pond and had prepared action plan for its disposal and same was under
implementation by the authority.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 22 of 46
f) Respondent No.1 uses washed and imported coal which contains ash less than 34%.
g) Respondent No.1 uses treated sewage water from Bhandewadi STP for ash handling & cooling purpose and fresh water uses for domestic purpose and DM water production only.
h) Respondent No.1 informed that TPS is taking efforts for enhancing ash utilization & as per amended fly ash notification dtd. 31.12.2021 and shall be achieved from 01.04.2022.
i) It was further observed that the Respondent No.1 has provided three nos. of intermediate silo & three nos. of remote silo with storage capacity 1250 MT each, all are available for dust free loading of bulkers. Again for achieving SO2 emission within norms proposal of FGD installation is under process & TPS has submitted BGs as per consent conditions.
j) Respondent No.1 has prepared Ash Water Recovery (AWR) pump house augmentation plan, same is under implementation.
k) Respondent No.1 uses Khasala Ash Bund for ash disposal, Khasala Ash Bund is live hence the work of HDPE & LDPE lining cannot be taken in hand. However, Stone pitching is done at inner slope of dyke wall.
l) Respondent No.1 has carried out regular maintenance of conveyor belt to avoid fugitive dust emission, water spraying system is provided on conveyer belts and all belts form are covered. Also concreting of all roads in CHP area is done.
m) Respondent No.1 has provided designated area for deposition of reject coal and necessary precautions has been taken to avoid leachating. A copy of Visit Report dated 05.01.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure I."
47. Rejoinder affidavit dated 16.03.2023, against the reply affidavit dated 21.07.2022 of Respondent No.1-Project Proponent and reply affidavit dated 09.11.2021 of Respondent No.4- MPCB, has been filed by the ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 23 of 46 applicants, wherein it is submitted that the non-compliances relate to shifting in location of the project, failure to install Flue Gas Desulphurization, incomplete fly ash utilization, dumping of ash into bunds without LDPE/ HDPE lining, failure to utilize sewage water and failure to develop a green belt as per the Environmental Clearance condition have also been admitted in the present Original Application. 100% fly ash utilization is also admitted to have not taken place because of various traffic restrictions imposed on ash vehicle movements. There is absence of major ash-based industries in the vicinity and ash utilization drastically reduced due to monsoon and corona pandemic. The Project Proponent has also admitted the dumping of ash into bunds without LDPE/ HDPE lining. It has also admitted 6-8% of total water requirement is in the form of freshwater taken from Pench Dam, hence there was failure to utilize the sewage water. It has also admitted that 3 tier plantations are not possible at the power plant site, as no land was acquired for the activities of the thermal power plant.
48. With respect to shifting of location of the project by the Project Proponent, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that as per the Technical EIA Guidance Manual for thermal power plants prepared by IL&FS Ecosmart Limited for MoEF&CC mentions the siting guidelines for thermal power plants and the locations that need to be avoided in locating a thermal power plant. It states "At the time of siting of the industry, if the notified limit of any major settlement is located within 50 km, the spatial direction of growth of the settlement for at least a decade must be assessed and the industry shall be sited at least 25 km away from the projected growth boundary of the settlement", while in the present case, the power plant is located within a distance of approximately 4-5 kilometers of the city of Nagpur, which is in violation of the siting ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 24 of 46 criteria given under the Technical EIA Guidance Manual for thermal power plants also.
49. With respect to failure to install Flue Gas Desulphurization unit, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the Environmental Clearance condition to install FGD was a part of the Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. Therefore, FGD had to be mandatorily complied with. Respondent No.1 has averred that with regard to installation of Flue Gas Desulphurization unit, the tenderization process is complete and the LOA is pending for approval. Respondent No.1 has admitted that due date set by the MoEF&CC or installation of Flue Gas Desulphurization units in thermal power plants of December 2022 will not be met. It is further stated by Respondent No.1 that the time required for installation of wet limestone FGD is about 26 to 30 months and the process got delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Environmental Clearance was granted on 04.01.2010 and its amendment was granted on 23.03.2017. As per its own statement, installation of wet limestone FGD takes about 26 to 30 months. It had more than sufficient time to install the FGD unit in the power plant from 2010 (when the Environmental Clearance was granted). However, no concrete steps have been taken in this regard. It has only issued tenders for the installation of FGD unit and no further steps have yet been taken by it since the year 2010. The delay in installing the FGD unit is causing increase in pollutants beyond permissible limits. The MoEF&CC has also acknowledged the non- compliance on their part with regard to installation of FGD. A site visit was conducted by the officials of MoEF&CC on 07.12.2021 to the project site to check the status of compliance with the conditions of the Environmental Clearance and the status as on 07.12.2021 and it was stated "Not complied".
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 25 of 46
50. With respect to incomplete fly ash utilization, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 has stated that 100% fly ash utilization has not taken place because various traffic restrictions imposed on ash vehicle movements, there is absence of major ash-based industries in the vicinity, and ash utilization had drastically reduced due to monsoon and corona pandemic. In this regard, it is stated that the present thermal power plant has been in operation since the last 40 years, and yet has not been able to achieve 100% fly ash utilization. The reasons for non-compliance with 100% fly ash utilization, as given by it must have been known at the time when Environmental Clearance for expansion of the unit was granted in the year 2010. In light of this, no expansion of the plant should have been allowed.
51. It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.4- MPCB has also stated in their Reply Affidavit dated 09.11.2021 that fly ash utilization for the year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 is 59.06%, 28.79%, 12.81%, 29.33%, 42.95% and 80.96% respectively. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent No.1 has not achieved 100% fly ash utilization as required as per Environmental Clearance condition. It should be made clear that as per Para B (1) of the Fly Ash Utilization Notification, 2021, it is mandatory for thermal power plants to mandatorily provide fly ash to all agencies engaged in construction within 300 kilometers of the thermal power plant. The fly ash needs to be delivered at the project site free of cost and transportation cost is borne by the thermal power plant itself. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Respondent No.1 to ensure that the fly ash is provided to all construction activities within 300 kilometres. In light of this provision, it cannot be claimed by Respondent No.1 that it is exploring various prospective users of the generated fly ash since the law requires ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 26 of 46 them to provide fly ash to all construction activities within 300 kilometers range.
52. With respect to dumping of ash into bunds without LDPE/ HDPE lining, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 has admitted to the fact that no HDPE/LDPE lining work has been undertaken at the project site. It is stated that since the ash bund was already in operation, work of HDP/ LDP lining could not be taken up. There are two ash bunds associated with the thermal power plant, namely Koradi and Khasala. The HDPE/ LDPE lining could have been undertaken by diverting the ash flow to the Koradi ash bund. However, the same was not done by Respondent No.1 and has committed violation of Environmental Clearance condition.
53. It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the Respondent No.1 has submitted that no breach has taken place and that the other precautionary measures, such as stone pitching, construction of waste weirs etc. have been duly undertaken. The Environmental Clearance condition requires the additional safety measures to be undertaken in addition to HDP/ LDP lining. Therefore, saying that additional measures have been undertaken by it, does not exempt it from undertaking HDP/ LDP lining as well. Additionally, the statement by Respondent No. 1 that "no incidents of breaching of bund or overflow of ash water over bund are observed" is faulty and misleading, as a few days before the filing of the Reply Affidavit of Respondent No.1, the Khasala fly ash bund of Koradi Thermal Power Station breached on 16.07.2022, flooding three villages and the nearby Kanhan River with toxic fly-ash slurry. The same was also recorded in a news article titled, "Koradi Thermal Power Station plant's ash bund falls, toxic slurry in farms and houses" published in The Times of India on 17.07.2022. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 27 of 46
54. It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that it is also stated by Respondent No.1 that an application for amendment of the said Environmental Clearance condition has also been submitted to the MoEF&CC, but the same is not stated to have been approved. Therefore, until the amendment is approved, the Environmental Clearance condition will have to be complied with by Respondent No.1. The Environmental Clearance on HDP/ LDP lining is based on the precautionary principle and requires the Project Proponent to undertake certain measures to ensure that no leachate takes place. Therefore, HDP/ LDP lining is a mandatory requirement, not only in terms of the Environmental Clearance condition, but also in terms of the precautionary principle. In the case of South Gujarat Textile Processors Associations v. Union of India and Others 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 194, the Tribunal has observed that when a project is likely to impact the environment, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. The Report dated 07.12.2021 of the MoEF&CC, which was prepared after a site visit, states that "PP has increased the ash bund height from 305.2 ML to 312.0 ML without amendment in EC, which construe violation". The same Report also states that proper precautionary measures were not in place at the ash bund and on the ash bund area. Some cattle/cows were observed roaming on dry area of bund. Proper security was not observed. Therefore, it is suggested to increase the patrolling at ash bund area. Therefore, the averment by Respondent No.1 that all precautionary measures are in place, is misleading.
55. With respect to failure to utilize sewage water, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 has stated that sewage water from Bhandewadi STP is being used for the ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 28 of 46 project and the said STP is being operated and maintenance of the same is being carried out. It has constructed a weir over Nag River and the river water is pumped to Bhandewadi STP and then to Koradi Power Plant. Therefore, all of its water requirement is being met through fresh water of Nag River and not through the sewage water from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The source of water for the expansion unit is supplied from Pench Project.
56. With respect to failure to develop a green belt in compliance with the Environmental Clearance condition, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 has admitted to the non-compliance with the Environmental Clearance condition of developing a green belt. It has averred that 3 tier plantations are not possible at the power plant site, as no land was acquired for the activities of the thermal power plant and the available land already had established structures. It has provided details about the plantations undertaken by it. In this regard, it is submitted that providing information on the number of trees planted and the percentage of the area under forest cover by Respondent No.1 is not sufficient, as the Environmental Clearance condition specifically provided for 3-tier plantation to take place and that any variance in compliance with the Environmental Clearance condition cannot be met with its non-compliance. If the project proponent cannot comply with an Environmental Clearance condition, it will lead to withdrawal of the Environmental Clearance, unless the Competent Authority grants an amendment to the Environmental Clearance. Therefore, the averment of Respondent No.1 that it is not feasible to undertake 3 tier plantations cannot stand.
57. With respect to the averment as to whether substantial question relating to environment has arisen, it is further submitted in this rejoinder ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 29 of 46 affidavit by the applicants that Respondent No.1 has contended that violation of the conditions of the Environmental Clearance is not a substantial question relating to environment. In this regard, it is submitted that violation of the conditions of Environmental Clearance, which has been issued under the EIA Notification, 2006 [issued under Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986], is a substantial question relating to the environment arising from the applicability of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is listed in Schedule- I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and it has jurisdiction over the issues arising within the domain of the said Act. As per the case of J. Mehta v. Union of India (Original Application No.88 of 2013), it is held by the Tribunal that violation of conditions of Environmental Clearance is a substantial question relating to environment and comes under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, in the case in hand, violation of Environmental Clearance conditions fall under the expression 'substantial question relating to environment'.
58. With respect to the Original Application being barred by limitation, it is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that every day, the statutory norms and Orders of the Tribunal are not being complied with. Therefore, a fresh cause of action is created in light of the Order dated 07.05.2015 of this Tribunal in Original Application No.222 of 2014 (Forward Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.) and the same constitutes a continuing cause of action. Therefore, this Original Application is filed well within the period of limitation as prescribed under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
59. In this rejoinder affidavit of the applicants, objections to the reply affidavit dated 09.11.2021 and the additional affidavit dated 10.02.2022 of Respondent No.4- MPCB have also been mentioned, in which it is ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 30 of 46 specifically submitted that despite the fact that Respondent No.4 having issued several notices to Respondent No.1 for non-compliance with the Environmental Clearance conditions, no action has been taken by Respondent No.4 and violations are still continuing.
60. Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC has filed reply affidavit dated 04.12.2023, wherein it is submitted that the Answering Respondent has been following a set procedure for post Environmental Clearance Monitoring and compliance of the projects and accordingly vide Office Memorandum dated 25.11.2022, the Answering Respondent also issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the same. As per the SOP, the Answering Respondent at first seeks a Monitoring Report/Condition-wise Compliance Report from the concerned Regional Office. Based on the observed non-compliance in the Monitoring Report, a Clarification/ Action Taken Report is sought from the Project Proponent. The ATR is further reviewed at the level of RO, based on which they can take further necessary action to conclude the matter. Further, if no satisfactory action is received from the Project Proponent and the EC conditions are yet to be complied with, a Show-Cause Notice may be issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
61. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the Answering Respondent vide letter dated 28.10.2021 requested the RO, Nagpur to furnish the Compliance Report with respect to ECs granted to the Project Proponent, in response to which a site inspection was carried out on 07.12.2021, based on which a Consolidated Monitoring Report was submitted to the Ministry vide letter dated 29.12.2021. Thereafter, the said report was examined by the Ministry, and certain non-compliances were observed. The analysis of the inspection report revealed that the project has not been complying with various conditions stipulated in the EC ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 31 of 46 specifically Wet limestone Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) and piezo wells have not yet been installed. A copy of the newspaper advertisement of the EC letter has not been submitted, bulk transportation of fly ash by railway & erection of platform along the railway track for loading of fly ash by loaders in open wagons has not been done, work for transportation of coal by closed pipe conveyor has not yet been completed, construction of Remote silo has not been completed, work of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)/Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) lining has not been taken up, solar roof top panel in the premise is not complete, recovery lines have not been commissioned, work of dust suppression system and settling tank work for rainwater harvesting has not been completed yet, no regular groundwater monitoring is being done, compliance reports has not been uploaded on company's website, development of green belt, non- compliance with the revised emission standards for PM, SO2, NO2 & Hg as per the Notification dated 07.12.2015, thick green belt around ash dump has not been observed and Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (CAAQMS) stations have not yet been integrated with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
62. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.2 that the Answering Respondent vide letter dated 28.01.2022 sought a clarification/ condition-wise ATR from the Project Proponent which still remains awaited. As the Project Proponent failed to submit the ATR within requisite time, consequently, in view of non-submission of the ATR, the Answering Respondent issued a Show-Cause Notice to the Project Proponent vide letter dated 14.08.2023 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which was replied by the Project Proponent on 28.08.2023. The Answering Respondent vide e-mail dated 15.11.2023 requested the RO, Nagpur to review the response submitted by the Project Proponent and ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 32 of 46 submit the update compliance status report w.r.t. the project, which is still awaited. A reminder e-mail dated 28.11.2023 has also been sent to the RO, Nagpur to expedite the said process.
63. Respondent No.1 has filed Sur-rejoinder affidavit dated 11.07.2024 to the affidavit submitted by the applicants dated 16.03.2023 and reply to the affidavit dated 04.12.2023 filed by Respondent No.2-MoEF&CC, wherein we find that the same facts have been stated, which we have already considered above while dealing with its reply affidavit. Additionally, it is submitted that the expansion project would mean that the proposed units (3×660 MW) were to be installed in addition to the existing units on the land adjacent to the units (120 & 210 MW) which were in possession of MAHGENCO. The said area is very much within the study area of 30 kms. radius from the existing area which is in possession of the Answering Respondent.
64. With respect to Technical EIA guidance manual for Thermal power plants prepared by IL & FS Eco-smart Limited for MoEF&CC mentions the siting guidelines for thermal power plants and the location that need to be avoided in locating a thermal power plant, it is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that this is not applicable to the case of 3×660 MW units, as the land was already available adjacent to the existing units and the issue of industry, to be sited at least 25 km away from the projected growth boundary of the settlement, is not applicable. The old Koradi units have been in existence since the decade of 1970-80, where human settlement was not in number. Instead, due to the Koradi power plant, residential and commercial establishments increased in the vicinity due to the availability of power plant and social-economical benefits arising out of it.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 33 of 46
65. With respect to the allegation that the power plant in the present case is located within the distance of approximately 4-5 kms. from the city of Nagpur, which is in violation of the siting criteria given under the technical EIA guidance manual for the thermal power plant, it is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the power plant is constructed on the available land under the possession of MSPGCL, which was allotted by the Government as per the prevailing norms. As such the power plant came into existence initially, followed by urbanization in the vicinity of the power plant. As the EIA study of the proposed project was carried out for a 10 km radius, the Environmental impact was evaluated considering the city of Nagpur.
66. With respect to the allegation regarding failure to install Flue Gas Desulphurization units, it is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the Project Proponent had been approaching the Ministry/ EAC for wavier of installation of FGD in its plant. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the EAC in its meetings held in December 2009, April - May 2010 and August 2012. In the minutes of 54th meeting of reconstituted EAC on Environmental Impact Assessment of thermal power plants conducted in August 2012, it mentions that "The committee however agreed that request can be reviewed at the later stage after adequate study has been done and a scientific justification is submitted by the project proponent informing that non-installation of FGD would not entail any adverse effect on Air quality of Nagpur city". It is further submitted that the due date set by the MoEF&CC for the Thermal Power Plant was of December 2022 as per the Notification dated 31.03.2021. As per the latest Notification of MoEF&CC dated 05.09.2022, the timeline for compliance for industries under Category "A" for SO2 emissions is given as 31st December, 2024. Hence as ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 34 of 46 per revised guidelines, the time limit shall be December 2024. Category A is set by MPCB for Koradi Power Plant.
67. It is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the Project Proponent had applied for waiver of FGD condition to MoEF after the issuance of EC as stated in the 54th minutes of meeting reconstituted by the EAC on Environmental Impact Assessment of Thermal Power Plants conducted in August 2012. MoEF kept on revising the timeline for installation of FGD units to TPS across the India which can be demonstrated in terms of the Notification of March 2021 and subsequent Notification of September 2022. That means the TPP industry across India was facing techno-commercial problems regarding the installation of FGD. MoEF&CC has also revised the timeline with revised Notification, and as of now as per the latest Notification dated 05.09.2022, the revised timeline is set as December 2024.
68. It is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that MoEF&CC vide new Notification dated 31.12.2021 has also revised the timeline by providing a three-year cycle to the Thermal Power Plant for achieving the ash utilization target. As per the new Notification, the timeline for utilization of legacy ash shall be completed within ten years from the date of publication of the said Notification and that under Section- 5 of the said Notification, the obligations for achieving the ash utilization targets shall be applicable from 01st April, 2022. It is further submitted that the issue of fly ash utilization is mentioned in the EC condition, which was issued in the year 2010, as per which 100% utilization of fly ash has to be achieved from the fourth year of operation and thereafter, the third unit came into operation in January 2017. Hence four years thereafter, the timeline for achieving the ash utilization target would have been completed. MoEF&CC has also issued new Notification ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 35 of 46 dated 31.12.2021 with a revised timeline for achieving the ash utilization target, which was extended.
69. It is further submitted in this sur-rejoinder affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the percentage of daily fly ash utilization is about 99.7% i.e., 7799 MT is being utilized, out of ash generated quantity 7,822 MT, which comes out to be 99.7%. It is further submitted that EC condition states to achieve the fly ash utilization from the fourth year of operation, which comes to 2021. From the figure given by the applicants, it is seen that the ash utilization percentage has gradually increased over the years vis-a-vis MSPGCL has made efforts to increase fly ash utilization.
70. Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC has filed additional affidavit dated 02.12.2024, wherein it is submitted that based on the non-compliances of the conditions of EC, a Show Cause Notice dated 14.08.2023 was issued to the Project Proponent, in reply to which, a response dated 28.08.2023 was submitted by it, which was considered in the minutes of the personal hearing, which is annexed as Annexure-R2/2 to this affidavit, in which following conclusion is drawn:-
i. The Project Proponent (PP) is required to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in a time-bound manner to adhere to the primary environmental concerns, encompassing greenbelt development, fugitive emission control, fly ash management, monitoring among others. These SOPs should be mandated to be applicable to all Thermal Power projects under its purview. It is imperative that the SOP remains resilient to any alterations in the organizational structure or advancements in activities, ensuring continuous compliance with Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions. A copy of the SoP should be submitted to Ministry's RO with a copy to C&MD, MoEFCC. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 36 of 46 ii. The PP is required to provide the most recent stability report concerning the design, strength, and safety of the ash dyke. This report should detail the measures implemented to prevent breaches and mitigate risks such as leaching into groundwater, maintaining soil stability, and preventing airborne particles that may cause air pollution in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, this report must be prepared by an accredited institute known for its expertise and credibility in the field.
iii. PP shall also submit the action taken report regarding the collapse of the fly ash bund at Koradi Thermal Power Station in 2022.
iv. PP shall submit Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Management plan for any future accident in the plant and the area likely to be affected by any such future incident by conducting mathematical modelling.
v. PP shall declare the legacy fly ash and shall submit the details of the fly ash utilized and disposed before and after the Ministry's Notification No. S.O. 5481(E) dated 31.12.2021.
vi. PP shall expedite the process of FGD installation and shall adhere to the timeline granted in MoEF&CC Notification dated 05.09.2022.
vii. PP shall submit copy of the affidavit filed by them in the Hon'ble NGT in the O.A. no. 62 of 2021 titled "Krishi Vigyan Arogya Sanstha & Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. & Ors." pending before Hon'ble NGT(WZ), Pune.
viii. PP shall apply for amendment of EC conditions on PARIVESH which are not applicable/feasible to the project at the earliest."
71. It is further mentioned in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.2 that in response to the above directions given during the personal hearing, the Project Proponent has provided an updated compliance status ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 37 of 46 report vide letter dated 22.05.2024, in reference to which, the point-wise observation is enumerated as below:-
"
i. The project proponent has formulated and submitted the following Standard Operating Procedures (SoP):
1. A copy of the SoP for the operation of pollution control devices has been annexed herewith as Annexure-R2/4.
2. A copy of the SoP for the Fly ash utilization has been annexed herewith asAnnexure-R2/5.
3. A copy of the SoP for the Ash bund operation has been annexed herewith as Annexure- R2/6.
It was further stated that the total project area is 652.02 hectares, of which 33% equates to 215.16 hectares. As of the present date, 278.10hectares have been developed as a green belt, representing 42.65% of the total project area. In the financial year 2023-24, 10,000 trees were planted around the plant area, including the bund.
ii. The project proponent has submitted latest ash dyke stability report w.r.t. Khasala and Koradi ash bund. A copy of the said reports have been annexed herewith as Annexure-R2/7 and Annexure-R2/8 respectively.
iii. The project proponent has submitted an action taken report regarding the collapse of Khasala ash bund at Koradi thermal power station in 2022, which has been annexed herewith as Annexure-R2/9.
iv. W.r.t. the Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) management plan the Project Proponent has submitted that the QRA study will be done by Dec-24 for outside the plant area ( Ash bund) v. The Project Proponent has outlined the details of fly ash utilization at the project, making the following submissions:
Fly ash utilized at Koradi TPS before Ministry Notification No. S.O.5481(E) dated 31.12.2021: 88,849 MT ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 38 of 46 Fly ash utilized at Koradi TPS after Ministry Notification No. S.O.5481(E) dated 31.12.2021: 357,398 MT Fly ash disposed in the ash pond before Ministry Notification No. S.O.5481(E) dated 31.12.2021:
14,772,981 MT Fly ash disposed in the ash pond after Ministry Notification No. S.O.5481(E) dated 31.12.2021:
7,410,553 MT vi. The Project Proponent has submitted that an LoA has been issued for installing Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) units at Units 8, 9, and 10 of the Koradi Thermal Power Station. Initial discussions with the vendor have been completed, and preparations for site clearance and power supply for construction are underway.
vii. The project proponent has provided a copy of affidavit filed before the Hon'ble tribunal in the instant case."
72. It is found from this affidavit that the status of compliance and implementation of the said recommendations have not yet been submitted to the Ministry.
73. Applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit dated 17.03.2025 to the reply affidavit dated 04.12.2023 and additional affidavit dated 02.12.2024 of Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC, wherein it is reiterated that multiple violations have been found by Respondent No.2 to have been committed by the Project Proponent in the operation of Koradi Thermal Power Station in Nagpur, Maharashtra. Regarding these violations, details are given in para no.5 of this affidavit. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 failed to take any action against the Project Proponent.
74. Besides the above affidavits, both the sides have submitted their convenience compilation also, which are taken on record. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 39 of 46
75. During the argument, copy of MoEF&CC's Notification dated 30.12.2024 was also submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 across the Bench, vide which the deadlines for installing FGD has been further extended in thermal power plants upto December 2027, December 2028 and December 2029 for Category A, B and C Thermal Power Plants respectively, contending that in view of the above Notification, Respondent No.1 is required to install FGD by December 2027.
76. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record in depth.
77. On the basis of pleadings, we are of the view that following points need to be decided by this Tribunal:-
(i). Whether Respondent No.1 has shifted its location of the project from the geographical coordinates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010?
(ii). Whether Respondent No.1 has failed to install Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) unit in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010 and the deadline of December 2022 set by the MoEF&CC?
(iii). Whether Respondent No.1 has failed to attain complete fly ash utilization, in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010?
(iv). Whether Respondent No.1 has dumped ash into bunds without proper precautions including installing HDPE/ LDPE lining, in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010?
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 40 of 46
(v). Whether Respondent No.1 has failed to utilize sewage water and fulfilling its requirement of water by extracting water from Pench Dam, in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010?
(vi). Whether Respondent No. 1 has failed to develop a green belt in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010?
(vii). Any other relief is required to be granted to the applicants?
78. Issue No.(i): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has shifted its location of the project from the geographical coordinates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. In this regard, we are of the view that change in coordinates would not indicate that there is any shift in the location of the project because the project is an expansion project which has been extended on the same location in their land within the same premise under their jurisdiction. This issue is decided accordingly.
79. Issue No.(ii): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has failed to install Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) unit in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010 and the deadline of December 2022 set by the MoEF&CC. In this regard, we are of the view that though there is clear admission of violation on the part of Respondent No.1, as it could not set up FGD unit, but defense is being taken by Respondent No.1 of the MoEF&CC's Notification dated 05.09.2022 followed by the Notification dated 30.12.2024, which has granted extension of time up to 31.12.2027. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is authorized now to put in place the FGD unit up to 31.12.2027. So, as of now, it cannot be ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 41 of 46 treated to be a violation on the part of Respondent No.1. This issue is decided accordingly.
80. Issue No.(iii): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has failed to attain complete fly ash utilization, in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. In this regard, we are of the view that as per the reply affidavit of Respondent No.1-Project Proponent, since the year 2018-19 up to the year 2021-22, Ash Utilization has been shown to be 81.12% and not 100%, because within four years, it ought to have touched its 100% ash utilization target. Further, as per the report dated 18.01.2024 (Annexed as Annexure- R2/1 to the reply affidavit dated 02.12.2024 of Respondent No.2) of the MoEF&CC, it is submitted that fly ash utilization has decreased, as it is shown to be 59.49% in the financial year 2023-24 (till December, 2023) (at page no.1246 of the paper book), hence, violation in this regard is well established. Therefore, we have to calculate the amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) for this violation.
81. In regard to the above, question arises as to what should be the standard to be adopted for imposing the amount of EDC for the said violation on the part of Respondent No.1. In this regard, we may rely on the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 delivered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.117/2014 read-with Original Application No.499/2014 and Original Application No.102/2014 (M.A. No. 858/2014, M.A. No.872/2014, 42/2015, 287/2015, 694/2015 & 580/2016) (Shantanu Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.), wherein following yardstick has been adopted:-
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 42 of 46
"
"
82. In view of above, we are of the view that if we go by the same principle in the case in hand, this power project, being 660 MW x 3 units = 1980 MW, would fall in the 3rd category i.e. Thermal Power Plants beyond the capacity of 1000 MW and for such project, cost of damages would be fixed to Rs.5 Crores. This issue is decided accordingly.
83. Issue No.(iv): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has dumped ash into bunds without proper precautions including installing HDPE/ LDPE lining, in violation of the condition of the Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. In this regard, we are of the view that as per the reply affidavit dated 04.06.2022 (in the 1st page of reply, date is mentioned to be 21.07.2022) of Respondent No.1, this violation is admitted by it, but the justification has been given by Respondent No.1 that the ash bund was live when they started using it, hence, the work of HDPE/LDPE lining could not be taken up in hand. But we are not inclined to accept this justification and are of the view that they ought to have dumped the ash into the new bunds after taking full precaution by installing HDPE/LDPE lining, which has not been done, hence the same is found to be fault in this regard. Therefore, this will be falling in the category of continuing violation from the very initial date from commissioning of the first unit i.e. from 16.12.2015 to till date.
84. We may also take note of the fact that Respondent No.1 had tried to get the said condition modified. But so far, the same has not been modified ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 43 of 46 by the MoEF&CC. In this regard, we direct Respondent No.4- MPCB to calculate the amount of EDC for the aforesaid period, on the basis of principle laid down in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti's case within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this Judgment and levy the same from Respondent No.1-Project Proponent within two months thereafter. This issue is decided accordingly.
85. Issue No.(v): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has failed to utilize sewage water and fulfilling its requirement of water by extracting water from Pench Dam, in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. In this regard, we are of the view that in the Expansion EC dated 04.01.2010, which is annexed at page nos.418 to 423 of the paper book, in condition no.(xii), it is laid down "The treated effluents conforming to the prescribed standards only shall be re-circulated and reused within the plant. There shall be no discharge outside the plant boundary except during monsoon. Arrangements shall be made that effluents and storm water do not do not get mixed". Besides that, in para no.2 of the said EC, it is laid down "Additional fresh water will be required for this proposed expansion project will be met from the sewage collected by Nagpur Municipal Corporation after treatment. MoU with Nagpur Municipal Corporation is in place. No additional fresh water will be drawn, since only the allotted water from Pench River (through a canal) will be utilized....".
86. The above condition of EC would show that water was permitted to be taken from outside i.e. Pench Dam and that utilization of the sewage water was to be done for fulfilling its water requirements. But that was possible only when the same was treated. Evidence has come on record that the Project Proponent is taking sewage water from Nagpur Municipal Corporation and after having treated the same, it is being used for cooling ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 44 of 46 purpose. Therefore, we do not find any violation committed on the part of Respondent No.1-Project Proponent in this regard. This issue is decided accordingly.
87. Issue No.(vi): As regards this issue, we have to decide as to whether Respondent No.1 has failed to develop a green belt in violation of the condition of Environmental Clearance dated 04.01.2010. In this regard, we are of the view that Respondent No.1-Project Proponent has submitted through its affidavit dated 04.06.2022 that it has planted 5,93,927 trees up to 31.03.2022 as per the Specific Condition No.4 (xviii) of the EC, in which it is mentioned "Green Belt consisting of 3 tiers of plantations of native species around plant and at least 100 m width shall be raised. Wherever 100 m width is not feasible a 50 m width shall be raised and adequate justification shall be submitted to the Ministry. Tree density shall not less than 2500 per ha with survival rate not less than 70%". As per the Compliance Report dated 29.01.2018 of Respondent No.1-Project Proponent, it is found that 3,815 trees have been planted in and around 3 x 660 MW Koradi Ex-Project up to December 2017 and Landscaping Program is chalked out which is being implemented in phased manner till date. Further, in the reply affidavit dated 02.12.2024 of Respondent No.2- MoEF&CC at Annexure- R2/1 (at page no.1244 of the paper book), it is recorded "The total project area is 652.02 ha. 33% of total project area comes to be 215.16 ha. Out of total project area till dated 276.4 area has been developed as green belt. PP has proposed to plant 10,000 trees in FY 2023-24 around plant area including bund". Therefore, report of the MoEF&CC would clearly show that adequate plantation has been done by Respondent No.1-Project Proponent. On this count, we do not find any violation to have been committed by Respondent No.1. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 45 of 46
88. In view of above observations/directions, we dispose of this application with the following directions:-
(i). An amount of Rs.5 Crores shall be deposited by Respondent No.1- Project Proponent with Respondent No.4- MPCB, as described by us above while dealing with the Issue No.(iii), within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this Judgment.
(ii). As directed above while dealing with the Issue No.(iv), the amount to be calculated by Respondent No.4- MPCB, in respect of the fly ash utilization and HDPE/LDPE lining for the said period, on the basis of principle laid down in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti's case, within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this Judgment and levy the same from Respondent No.1-Project Proponent within two months thereafter.
(iii). The amount so realized from Respondent No.1-Project Proponent shall be utilized for upliftment of the environment at the site in question within six months thereafter.
(iv). In regard to the above, a report shall be submitted by Respondent No.4- MPCB to the Registry of this Tribunal within a period of one month after utilization of the said amount of EDC.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM January 05, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) P.Kr.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2021 (WZ) Page 46 of 46