National Green Tribunal
Mrs Almitra H Patel vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2016
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 199 of 2014
And
Original Application No. 175 of 2013 (THC)
And
Original Application No. 268 of 2013 (THC)
And
Original Application No. 436 of 2015
(M.A. No. 1012 of 2015)
And
Original Application No. 168 of 2013 (THC)
(M.A. No. 36 of 2014 & M.A. No. 417 of 2016)
And
Original Application No. 01 of 2014
(M.A. No. 03 of 2014, M.A. No. 321 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1104 of 2016)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Almitra H. Patel & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Namita Maniktala Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
And
Court on its own motion Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
And
Laxmender Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
And
Karan Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
And
Gram Panchayat Tutu Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE U.D.SALVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AJAY A DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER
Original Application No. 199 of 2014
Present: Applicant :
Mr. Abhinay, Adv.
Respondent No. 1: Mr. Abhishek Attrey and Mr. Vikas Malhotra,
Adv. for MoEF Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma and Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv. for UPPCB & MPPCB Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. For M.P. Pollution Control Board Ms. Preety Makkar, Adv. for Puducherry Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. for State of J&K. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar and Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, advs. For Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. with Mr. Bhupender Kumar, LA, CPCB Mr. E.C. Vidyasagar, Mr. Subhash C. Sagar and Ms. Jenniefer.
Ms. Sakshi Popli, Adv. for NDMC & DJB Mr. Shibani Ghosh Choudhary, Adv. For State of Maharashtra (Urban Dev. Dept.) Mr. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. for State of Nagaland & Nagaland PCB Mr. Guntur Prabhakar and Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar and Mr. Prashant Mathur, Advs. for the State of Andhra Pradesh Mr. Devraj Ashok, Adv. for State of Karnataka Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR and Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv. For State of Tripura Mr. Ashish Negi, Adv. For Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for State of Punjab and PCB Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Adv. For State of Meghalaya Mr. Nishe Rajen Shander and Mr. Gajendra Khichi, Advs. For Kerala Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv.
Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. for State of Tamilnadu and Mr. M. Marutha Samy, Adv. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv. For EDMC Mr. M. Paikaray, Adv. for State of Odisha and Odisha Pollution Control Board Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv. for State of Odisha Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Adv. with Mr. Dinesh Jindal, LO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee Mr. Edward Belho, AAG with Mr. K. Luikang Michael and Ms. Elix Gangmei, Advs. for Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. for State of Uttarakhand Mr. P. Venkat Reddy and Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. For State of Telangana Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Adv. for CECB Mr. Jogy Scaria, , Adv. for State of Kerala & KSPCB.
Mr. Ajit Sharma and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Adv. for Agra Nagar Nigam Mr. Debarshi Bhuyan and Mr. Santosh S. Rebelo, advs. for State of Goa and Goa State Pollution Control Board Mr. Shantala Sankrit, Adv. For Daman & Diu & Dadra & Nagar Haveli Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. for JSPCB Mr. Gaurav dhingra, Adv. for State of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Bhupender Kumar, (LA) Central Pollution Control Board Mr. Raman Yadav and Mr. Dalsher Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Grover, AAG with Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advs. for Haryana State PCB Ms. Sapam Biswajit Meiteiand Ms. B. Khushbansi, Advs. for State of Manipur and Manipur PCB Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Avneesh Arputham and Mr. Anuradha Arputham and Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv. for State of Sikkim Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. for Lakshadweep Mr. Rudreshwar Singh and Mr. Gautam Singh, Advs. for Bihar Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Mr. Ganesh Bapu TR and Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advs. for State of Mizoram and MPCB Ms. Puja Kalra, Adv. for North & South MCD Mr. Anchit Sharma and Mr. Satamita Ghosh, Adv. For Delhi Cantonment Board Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi, Mr. Rohit Pandey AND Mr. D.N. Tirpathi, Advs. for Andman and Nicobar Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. for M.C. Shimla Mr. Harish Sharma, Advs. for State of Chhattisgarh Mr. Tayenjam Momo Singh, Adv. for Meghalaya SPCB Mr. Shuvodeep Roy and Mr. Sayoj Mohandas, Adv. for State of Assam and Assam Pollution Control Board Mr. Anurag Kumar and Ms. Sakshi Popli, Adv. for DJB & NDMC Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Adv. for State of Jharkhand Mr. Nikhil Nayyar and Ms. Smiti Shah Advs. for AP PCB and Telangana SPCB Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of HP Ms. Aagam Kaur for Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs.
for the State of Gujarat Appeal No. 175 of 2013 (THC) Present: Applicant Respondent Nos.1&3: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of Himachal Pradesh Appeal No. 268 of 2013 (THC) Present: Applicant Respondent Nos.1&2: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of Himachal Pradesh Original Application No. 436 of 2015 Present: Applicant Respondent Nos.1&2: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of Himachal Pradesh Appeal No. 168 of 2013 (THC) Present: Applicant Respondent Nos.1&2: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of Himachal Pradesh Original Application No. 01 of 2014 Present: Applicant Respondent Nos.1&2: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for State of Himachal Pradesh Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 11 to 16 Original Application No. 268 of 2013 (THC) October This is an application registered on Court on Its Own 25, 2016 Motion, which was issued by the High Court of Himachal jg & ss Pradesh. Subsequently, this case was transferred to NGT for disposal in accordance with law.
It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the case in any greater detail. Suffices it to notice that Shimla City generates 55 to 60 MT of Municipal Solid Waste every day, and because of dispute between the Corporation and previous Project Proponent, the plant could not operate and there was huge dumping of waste on the site from Shimla and other surrounding areas of the plant; and then after terminating the contract of the previous Project Proponent the Corporation had issued fresh tender and now tender and work has been awarded to M/s. Elephant Energy Pvt. Ltd. Now we are informed that the plant Waste to Energy would start its operation w.e.f. 15th December, 2016. Presently under the orders of the Tribunal, Shimla Corporation is sending its waste to Waste to Energy plant at Chandigarh and is paying certain amount of tipping fee. Mr. Vinod Fotedar, Director of the Project Proponent Company submitted that they were claiming Item No. 11 to 16 tipping fee from the Corporation for starting the plant or either October of its inception prior to 15th December, 2016. It is evident that 25, 2016 under the terms of the contract the Project Proponent is not jg & ss entitled to claim tipping fee. Thus, he has stated that they are not claiming any tipping fee, but site in question was handed over to them two months later that is why there was delay of eight weeks for which they would raise appropriate claims before the appropriate forum and without prejudice to this contention, he has made a statement and give undertaking to the Tribunal that the plant would positively start its operation w.e.f. 15th December, 2016 without delay and default. The undertaking of the Director of the Company is accepted by the Tribunal. In view of the above and after hearing of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties we dispose of this application finally with the following directions.
1. The Project Proponent undertaking that the plant would start its operation without default and delay w.e.f. 15th December, 2016 is accepted and in the event the Project Proponent or its Director failing to comply with their undertaking they shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with law.
2. The above, however, will be in addition to a direction for payment of environmental compensation that may be passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 15 and 17 of NGT Act, 2010.
3. The Corporation shall provide all cooperation and help to the Project Proponent to ensure that the Plant commences its operation w.e.f. 15th December, 2016.
4. The Project Proponent would be entitled to raise its claim before an appropriate forum in regard to its claim for delay in handing over the site till that time. As far as the Tribunal is concerned we do not impose any tipping fee on the Corporation.
5. Till 15th December, 2016 the Corporation will continue to Item No. 11 to 16 send its Solid Municipal Waste to site at Chandigarh.
October 6. If there is default by any of the authorities. The parties to 25, 2016 this application are at liberty to approach the Tribunal jg & ss by filing an independent application. The Commissioner of Shimla Corporation will inform the Tribunal after personal inspection in the first week of December as to whether the plant is prepared for operation w.e.f. 15th December, 2016 if not the reason thereof and why an appropriate action be not directed by the Tribunal both against the Project Proponent and the Corporation.
7. The Project Proponent and the Corporation collectively make a statement before the Tribunal which is accepted that they would improve the surrounding of the land fill site and the plant to ensure that there is no environmental degradation and the environment, ecology and greenery in the area is substantially improved so as to ensure that there is no adverse effect on public health.
With the above directions the Original Application NO.
268(THC )/2013 stands disposed of with no order as to cost.
Original Application NO. 01/2014 This application relates to a prayer by Gram Panchayat Tutu that the site surrounding to the land fill site in question should be environmentally restored and improved so as to maintain clear environment, ecology and public health.
The Project Proponent and the Corporation collectively make a statement before the Tribunal which is accepted that they would improve the surrounding of the land fill site and the plant to ensure that there is no environmental degradation, environment, ecology and greenery of the area is substantially improved so as to ensure that there is no adverse effect on public health.
With the above orders the Original Application No. 01/2014 shall stand finally disposed of with no order as to cost. Item No. 11 to 16 M. A. No. 03/2014, M. A. No.321/2014 and 1104/2016 October 25, 2016 These M.A. No. 03/2014, M.A. No.321/2014 and jg & ss 1104/2016 do not survive for consideration as the main application itself stands disposed of.
Consequently the M.A. No. 03/2014, M. A. No. 321/2014 and 1104/2016 also stand disposed of.
Original Application No. 175(THC) of 2013, Original Application No. 436 of 2015 and Original Application No. 168(THC ) of 2013 These applications shall be listed for final arguments before the Tribunal on 01st November, 2016 when the Concerned Officers in the State Government, Mandi Municipal Committee and Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and other concerned authorities shall be present in person before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing.
List these matters on 01st November, 2016.
Original Application No. 199 of 2014 Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
..........................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........................................,JM (U.D. Salvi) ..........................................,EM (Bikram Singh Sajwan) ..........................................,EM (Dr. Ajay A Deshpande)