National Green Tribunal
Scheduled Tribe Association Sao Jose De ... vs The Goa State Pollution Control Board on 27 February, 2026
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2024 (WZ)
I.A. NO.209 OF 2024 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Scheduled Tribe Association
San Jose De Areal,
Through its President, Pedro Castanha
H. No.647/2, Moll, San Jose De Areal,
Salcete, Goa - 403 709.
2. Social Justice Forum
Sao Jose De Areal,
Through its President, Alcina Fernandes
H. No. 583/C, Melclive, Igorjewaddo,
San Jose De Areal, Salcete, Goa-403 709.
3. Ralloi Residents Welfare Association
Through its President, Suraj Naik
San Jose De Areal,
Curtorim Salcete Goa.
.....Applicants
Versus
1. The Goa State Pollution Control Board
Through its Member Secretary
Nr. Pileme Industrial Estate,
Opp. Saligao Seminary,
Saligao Bardez, Goa- 403 511.
2. The State of Goa,
Though the Chief Secretary,
The Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa - 403 521.
3. Department of Environment & Climate Change, Goa
Through the Director,
4th Floor, Dempo Towers, Patto,
Panaji, Goa - 403 001.
4. Goa Carbon Limited
Through its Managing Director,
Dempo House, Campal Panaji,
North Goa-403 001.
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 1 of 38
5. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Through the Joint Secretary,
2nd Floor, Agni Block,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for R-1/GSPCB
Mr. Shubham Sinai Priolkar, Advocate for R-2 and R-3
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate along-with
Mr. Arnav Dash, Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan,
Mr. Naveneet Dogra, Ms. Manasi Bachani, Advocates for R-4
Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-5/MoEFCC
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 28.01.2026
Pronounced on : 27.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This Original Application has been filed with the prayer for permanent closure/relocation of the industry of Respondent No.4- Goa Carbon Limited/Project Proponent, which is operating its calcination plant of 3,08,000 TPA (843.83 TPD) capacity for over four decades in the Village of Sao Jose De Areal, which is emitting toxic and impermissible levels of air pollution and causing harm to the health of the local villagers because Respondent No.4 is a regular supplier to Aluminium Smelters, Graphite Electrode and Titanium Dioxide manufacturers, as well as to the other users in the metallurgical and chemical industries.
2. It is submitted in this application that the villagers have been complaining about the excessive air pollution in the region due to the Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 2 of 38 operation of the unit of Respondent No.4 since its inception in the year 1980. A copy of the complaint dated 16.03.1989, which was submitted by the villagers of the Molla region of the Sao Jose de Areal to the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat of Sao Jose de Areal, regarding the severe nuisance being caused by the air pollution emitted by the unit of Respondent No.4- Project Proponent, has been annexed as Annexure A-1 to this application.
3. It is further submitted in this application that over the past four decades, from time to time, the villagers have been making several complaints regarding their difficulty in breathing and the constant settling of particulate matter and dust and coke all over their homes and clothes drying lines. Each round of agitation of the villagers has resulted in the Respondent No.4 taking temporary and farcical measures to reduce or subdue the pollution caused by their manufacturing and production activities, however, such measures have no real consequence on the hardship faced by the villagers and have meaningless, short-lived impact in terms of mitigation techniques. Therefore, the Applicants have prayed that the industrial unit of Respondent No.4, which is located within the village of Sao Jose De Areal, may be closed down permanently and may be relocated elsewhere and Respondent No.1- Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) may be directed not to renew the Consent to Operate of Respondent No.4-PP.
4. It is further submitted in this application that Pet Coke is a highly dangerous product to process and produce. Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) is subjected to a "calcination" process in a rotary kiln, where it is heated to 1000 or 1350 Degrees Celsius to remove its moisture content. The treatment of the RPC is then burnt at which time it is de-volatised, and then "calcined" where it is densified. Lastly, the RPC is cooled down in a rotary cooler where it is sprayed with moisture and processed further till Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 3 of 38 the final product is moisture free. The product is then taken to finish storage godowns. Calcined pet-coke is majorly used in the steel and aluminum industries.
5. It is further submitted in this application that the air pollution emitted from the calcination process of RPC is mainly in the form of Particulate Matter (PM) but also includes Oxides of Sulphur and Nitrogen. Exposure to each of these pollutants in excess of permissible limits under the law would result in serious repercussions on the health of the persons suffering the exposure. It is submitted that the applicants and other residents of the locality are caked with layers of grey and black Particulate Matter generated from processing of the coal by Respondent No.4. They are constrained to involuntarily ingest the Particulate Matter as they are forced to inhale the same non-stop by virtue of their proximity to the plant of the Respondent No. 4, resulting in suffering from several serious health issues, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Asthma, Bronchitis, wheezing, breathing difficulty, headaches, chronic cough, upper respiratory track infections, lower respiratory track infections, irritation in nose and throat, which have been diagnosed by the medical professionals.
6. It is further submitted in this application that in a report, which was prepared by the CPCB in September 2020 titled "National Ambient Air Quality Status and Trends, 2019", the CPCB has described that there are four pollutants, which have impacted the health of the people, as follows:-
i. Sulphur Dioxide (SO2): Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is a colourless, soluble gas with a characteristic pungent smell. In ambient air, SO2 can also affect human health, particularly, in those suffering from asthma and chronic lung diseases and Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 4 of 38 exacerbates respiratory symptoms and impaired breathing in sensitive individuals. It also causes visibility impairment. ii. Oxides of Nitrogen as NO2: Oxides of nitrogen are a generic term for a group of highly reactive gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts, which are formed during combustion processes at high temperatures from the oxidation of nitrogen in air, which irritates the nose and throat, increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. iii. Particulate Matter: It is a complex mixture of suspended solid and liquid particle in semi-equilibrium with surrounding gases.
Primary PM: Particulate Matter is called primary, if it is in the same chemical term, in which it is emitted into the atmosphere. The primary particulate matter would include wind-blown dust, such as road dust, fly ash, soot etc. Secondary PM: Particulate matter is called secondary if it is formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. It includes sulphates, nitrates etc. Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter or PM10 are the particles with upper size limited by a 50% cut at 10 m aerodynamic diameter, which consists of particles with a diameter up to 10 pm. Its major constituents are organic and elemental carbon, metals/elements like silicon, magnesium, iron, ions like sulphates, nitrates, ammonium etc. It can be formed by physical processes of crushing, grinding and abrasion of surfaces. It can settle in the bronchi and lungs which causes health problems like respiratory illness, Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 5 of 38 visibility impairment, aggravate existing heart and lung diseases. It also causes visibility reduction.
7. It is further submitted in this application that vide Notification dated 05.06.2023, the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change- Respondent No.5 amended the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 by adding Permissible Standards for emissions of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) Units as entry no.117 within Schedule- 1 of the said Rules, which stipulates the standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants. The said Notification stipulates that the permissible level of emissions for a Calcined Petroleum Coke unit, having a production capacity of more than 150 TPD, would be as follows:-
"
"
8. It is further submitted in this application that it is evident that from the readings of the Particulate Matter levels, which was compiled by the Goa State Pollution Control Board from the stack emission data of the Respondent No.4 for the period of January 2023 to January 2024, that the emissions of PM are higher than the prescribed permissible limits for Particular Matter under the NAAQs 24 hours permissible reading.
9. It is further submitted in this application that there have been 221 instances where the emissions of Respondent No.4 exceeded 150 mg/Nm3 which is highly dangerous for the environment. The emission of R P Stack- Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 6 of 38 PM Raw (mg/Nm3) and Cooler Stack-PM Raw (mg/Nm3) has been summarized as follows:-
"
"
10. Several Judgments have also been narrated by the applicants in para nos.19 & 20 of this Original Application, which have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regulating the use of both Petcoke and Furnace, and also by this Tribunal, wherein strict action was directed to be taken against such industries, if found violating the fuel policy on use of pet coke etc.
11. It is further submitted in this application that aggrieved by the long- standing issue of the impact of air pollution on the villagers of Sao Jose De Areal, a complaint bearing Proceeding No.302/2016 was filed before the Goa Human Rights Commission by a group of villagers on 24.10.2016, in which the villagers, inter alia, raised issues regarding the excessive air pollution emanating from the premises of the plant of Respondent No.4 as well as the impact on their health and destruction of their property due to the operation of the plant of Respondent No. 4 and the air pollution arising Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 7 of 38 therefrom. Thereafter, the Goa Human Rights Commission, vide its Inquiry Report dated 15.03.2022, arrived on the following conclusions:-
a). The Respondent No. 4 was guilty of causing excessive and impermissible air pollution which was detrimentally affecting the villagers of Sao Jose De Areal. The unit of the Respondent No.4 manufactured Calcined Petroleum Coke from the processing of raw Petroleum Coke which is hazardous in nature. Due to the hazardous nature of the operation of the plant of Respondent No. 4, "pollution is bound to be there and it can cause skin, eye or lung irritation".
The GHRC noted that during an inspection of the locality carried out by the Respondent No. 1 on 22/03/2015, "Coarse black powder particles were seen deposited on the Mangalore tiles and in the balcony of the Church building. In the balcony of the house of Mrs. Alina Fernandes also, coarse blackpowder particles were seen deposited. The housekeeping inside the factory unit was found to be not satisfactory and coarse particles were found inside the premises. Inspection was again carried out on 18/11/2016. Similarly dust particles were found accumulated on the nearby residences near the factory. Such deposits certainly result in undesirable interference with the comfort of the residents".
The Investigation cell of the GHRC on 18/06/2019 carried out site inspection within a radius of one kilometer from the central point of the factory. "At a distance of about 10 metres from the factory, mango leaves turned black due to deposit of black dust were seen. Within a distance of about 100 metres Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 8 of 38 from the factory, part of the field soil which was not ploughed, was seen black in colour. Black particles were seen in the nullah. Black particles were seen on the roof of the house of Maria Joaquina near the factory. Black dust particles were found inside the houses on the floor, stair cases, balconies, furniture, cars, two-wheelers, coconut leaves, alters/statues of Our Lady of Lourdes Chapel, etc. The Inspection Report says that the consent conditions are partly complied with".
b). There is a correlation between air pollution and a harmful impact on the health of people;
c). The act of harmful impacts of air pollution results in the violation of the human rights;
d). The conditions, which was laid down in the Consent to Operate granted to Respondent No.4-Project Proponent, were found to have been consistently breached by Respondent No.4. While considering the Inspection Report along-with the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring report submitted before it by the Respondent No.1, the GHRC held that the Consent to Operate dated 19/09/2017 was issued to the unit of the Respondent No. 2 with certain conditions, one of which was to streamline the coke (RCP and CPC) handling activities and to install adequate and effective Air Pollution Control Systems in rotary Kiln stack, within 3 months. But during inspection, it was .found that the unit had not installed the Air Pollution Control Systems and that the same was being operated in violation of the Consent condition, which constituted an offence. By the order dated 15/02/2018, Respondent No. 1 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 9 of 38 had directed the Respondent No. 2 to close/suspend the operation of the unit;
e). The Ambient Air Quality Monitoring was conducted from 02/02/2017 to 16/03/2017 at three different locations and the analytical results showed that the pollution exceeded permissible limits;
f). the consent conditions are partly complied with;
g). Every time, the Consent to Operate is given with several conditions, but it was found that no serious attempts have been made by Respondent No.1 to comply with those conditions;
h). The technical defence of the Respondent No. 4, regarding the fact that the villagers had not challenged the Consent to Operate, does not absolve the Respondent No. 4 of its liability as a pollutant.
12. It is further submitted in this application that after noting the aforementioned observations and findings, the Gujarat Human Right Commission (GHRC) made following recommendations:-
a). Regular inspection shall be carried out by the Respondent No.1 inside the factory and also within a radius of one kilometer from the center point of the factory and necessary direction shall be given to the Respondent No. 4 to stop the pollution, if any;
b). Whenever the Consent to Operate to the unit of Respondent No. 4 would be issued, the same would be issued with the conditions that Respondent No.1 shall ensure that all those Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 10 of 38 conditions were complied with within certain prescribed time limit and in case of default, the same can be withdrawn/suspended.
c). No renewal of consent to operate to the unit shall be given by the Respondent No.1 unless all the conditions mentioned in the previous consent had been duly complied with.
d). A penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on the Respondent No.4.
13. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted that the inquiry report and recommendations made therein were submitted by the GHRC under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Respondent- State Government to consider the same and thereafter, submit its comments to the said report, along-with any action taken or proposed to be taken.
14. It is further submitted in this application that the RTI reply, which was obtained by the Applicants from the Goa State Human Rights Commission, would reveal that the Respondent- Goa State Pollution Control Board submitted a report/ comments to the Goa State Human Rights Commission on 25.05.2022, wherein the Goa State Pollution Control Board merely committed to install AAQM equipment and monitor the data generated by it for a period of one year before deciding whether or not to renew the consent to operate granted to Respondent No. 4, which was said to expire in 31st March, 2024. The comments of the Goa State Pollution Control Board also indicated that the unit of the Respondent No. 4 was categorised as a "Red category" industrial unit as per the categorization of the Central Pollution Control Board. However, to the knowledge of the Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 11 of 38 Applicants, no action has been taken by the State Government in pursuance of the inquiry report of the GHRC.
15. It is further submitted in this application that in the year 2016, the CPCB identified four broad categories for industrial units, in descending order of the environmental harm namely, Red, Orange, Green and White categories, which determines the duration, for which a consent to operate can be issued to the unit in question, as well as the prescribed minimum frequency of the inspection of the units. As per a draft report titled "Classification of Industrial Sectors into Red, Orange, Green and White Categories: A Tool for Progressive Environmental Management", it was noted by the CPCB that the categorisation of an industrial unit, between red, orange, green and white could determine the "Siting criteria" of the unit. The term siting criteria was further explained to mean that, "The categorization may be used as a tool for deciding the location/siting of an industry in a particular location".
16. Based on the above averments, it is prayed finally by learned counsel for the applicants that Respondent No.1- GSPCB may be directed to ensure that the industrial unit of the Respondent No.4- Goa Carbon Ltd. within the village of Sao Jose De Areal may permanently be closed down or may be relocated elsewhere in an industrial area/zone such that it does not pose any danger to the health of humans residing in proximity of the unit; further, Respondent No.1 may be directed to refrain from renewing the Consent to Operate dated 28.03.2019 or to revoke any new, currently valid Consent to Operate issued to Respondent No.4- Goa Carbon Ltd due to the consistent violation of the terms of the Consent to Operate; further, Respondent No.1- GSPCB and Respondent No.3- Department of Environment & Climate Change may be directed to take appropriate steps Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 12 of 38 for restitution of the environment in the village of Sao Jose De Areal, particularly, by restoring the air quality, etc.
17. This matter was considered by this Tribunal on 23.04.2024, when it was admitted and notices were issued to the Respondents. By the same order, Joint Committee was also constituted with a direction that it shall visit the spot and submit its report as to whether respondent No.4 has been granted all the consents which were required to be obtained for setting up the industry and whether the conditions laid down therein have been complied with by it or not and if there is any non-compliance on the part of respondent No.4, amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) to be levied from respondent No.4 and the corrective action may also be proposed.
18. In compliance with the above order, the Joint Committee has submitted its report dated 28.05.2024, relevant part of which is quoted herein below:-
"
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 13 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 14 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 15 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 16 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 17 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 18 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 19 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 20 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 21 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 22 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 23 of 38 Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 24 of 38
"
19. A perusal of the above report would indicate that, by and large, all the directions, which were issued by the State Pollution Control Board, stood complied with by Respondent No.4, and regarding some other directions, it is recorded that the same need further improvement, which was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the applicants, saying that the same cannot be treated to be a clear finding of the Joint Committee regarding the said directions having been complied with and that the same should be treated to be a vague report.
20. Thereafter, the applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit dated 28.11.2025, wherein it is mainly emphasized that the statement of the Joint Committee does not confirm or deny the grievance of the villagers that Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 25 of 38 the portions of the plant were not in operation during the site inspection, and therefore, the same would imply that the true nature of the pollution caused in the fully functional plant could not be assessed at the time of inspection. It was further emphasized that the entire initial process of material handling and transportation of the raw material by conveyors was shut down during the time of the inspection. The actual pollution which was caused by the conveyor belts, could not be observed, as many of the conveyors were not working. The pollution, which occurs during the material handling phase, could not have been assessed on that particular date as there was no material handling taking place. The loaded vehicle that brings RPC in and out of the Respondent No.4, was sent back earlier that day so that the loading and unloading of the vehicle could not be observed by the Joint Committee.
21. In regard to the above objection, we may record our disapproval because there is no evidence found on record to the effect that any truck loaded with material was directed to be sent back. It appears to be a conjecture of the applicants' learned counsel. As regards this aspect, the Joint Committee Report says that the unit of Respondent No.4 has provided labourers for cleaning the internal road. Also, the unit has hired road sweeping machines which is operated within the premises. All internal roads were repaired to get a smooth surface, helping in removal of fugitive dust by road cleaning/sweeping machine.
22. It is also recorded in this report that the unit of Respondent No.4 has submitted water details, which were used for sprinklers. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the dust particles, which might have been generated in the process of unloading material at the site in question, would not have been taken care of by sprinkling of water etc. The Joint Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 26 of 38 Committee Report clearly states that the said directions were complied with, with adequacy.
23. During argument, learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently reiterated that Respondent No.4 is a defaulter and has been indulging in violation of the direction issued to it. From time to time, ad-hock measures have been taken by the Project Proponent, which were insufficient, as a result of which, lot of health problems have been caused to the local residents. But we cannot go by general submission in this regard. We have to go by the record available with us, particularly, that of the Joint Committee Report, which clearly states that adequate measures have been taken in this regard by Respondent No.4.
24. A perusal of the reply/objection dated 28.11.2024 of the applicants against the Joint Committee Report as well as the reply to Respondent No.4, it is found that the same is quite bulky and during argument, these averments were never read out before us at least those, which were found to be important one. But we heard the argument of learned counsel for the applicants at length. Therefore, whatever has been stated earlier, during arguments, has treated to be relevant by us to consider here.
25. Respondent No.4-Project Proponent has filed reply affidavit dated 18.09.2024, wherein it is submitted that the Answering Respondent has been operational for more than five decades and is engaged in the business of manufacture of Calcined Petroleum Coke and has three (3) manufacturing plants, situated at (1) St. Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa, (ii) Paradip, Odisha, and (iii) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, respectively. CPC is a crucial industrial input for the Aluminium and Steel industry. The present petition concerns the Goa plant of Respondent No.4 which is situated at St. Jose do Areal, Salcete, about 40 kms. away from Mormugao Port, and has Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 27 of 38 an annual capacity of 1,00,000 TPA. Respondent No.4 is a well-reputed Company and has been carrying out all its operations in accordance with law, particularly, all provisions of environmental law since its inception and has continually operated its plant under a valid Consent to Operate issued by the Goa State Pollution Control Board and has taken several steps over the years to ensure that pollution load from its plant is minimal.
26. Regarding the preliminary objections on maintainability, it is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the present Application purportedly filed under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 inter alia seeks to impugn the Consent to Operate dated 28.03.2019 issued in favour of the Respondent No.4, which is evident from prayer (b) of the petition, which was valid for a period of 5 years i.e., till 31.03.2024. Thereafter, the State Pollution Control Board has also issued further Consent to Operate on 03.04.2024, which is valid at present.
27. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that Consent to Operate is an appealable order under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and/or Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Further, an Appeal from the Order passed by the Appellate Authority under the said Acts lies before this Tribunal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is to be noted that the appellate mechanisms, provided under the Air Act, 1981 and the Water Act, 1974, have strict limitation period of 30 days, which all has expired. Moreover, an appeal against the permissions granted compositely under the Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 would lie to the Hon'ble High Court as has been clarified in the case of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries [(2019) SCC OnLine SC 221].
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 28 of 38
28. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the present Original Application, which is filed under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is nothing but an appeal against the Consent to Operate dated 28.03.2019 granted in favour of the Respondent No.4 which is not maintainable.
29. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that in the matter of Satyabrata Sanjeev Kumar Mohanry vs MoEF&CC [O.A. No. 53/2023/EZ, the Tribunal dismissed the same after observing that under the garb of reliefs claimed in the Original Application, applicants were in fact challenging the Stage-I and stage- II Forest Clearance granted by the MoEF&CC. Similarly the Tribunal had held in the matter of D.V. Giris vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Forest and Ecology [O.A. No. 154/2014/SZ] that once an appeal does not lie before the Tribunal against an order, it will not be appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 14 or any other provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the present Application, which is nothing but an appeal in the guise of an original application, is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same deserves to be dismissed at the very outset on this ground alone.
30. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for 5 years' limitation period and that the applicants have failed to establish as to who/what prevented them from approaching this Tribunal within the stipulated time under the provision of Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone.
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 29 of 38
31. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the applicants, in the limitation clause, have submitted that the cause of action in the present case originated on 15.03.2022 when the inquiry report of the Goa State Human Rights Commission was prepared, as the said report served as the first finding of correlation between the harm caused to the health of the Applicants and the air pollution prevalent in the region, while in paragraph 4 of the present Original Application, Applicants have alleged that the Respondent No.4's unit has been causing air pollution, thereby causing health ailments to the villagers since its inception. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Applicants are merely relying upon the Report of the Goa State Human Rights Commission dated 15.03.2022, in order to circumvent the period of limitation and this amounts to gross misuse of the process of this Tribunal.
32. During argument, learned counsel for the applicants, on the point of limitation, has urged that it was the Human Right Commission Forum, which was approached by the applicants for the first time and prior to that, several complaints were stated to have been moved before the appropriate Authorities, but to no avail. It is further urged by her that the Human Right Commission has given finding to the effect that there were violation of norms committed by Respondent No.4- Project Proponent and for that, several directions were also issued to it and also to the State PCB to ensure that those directions be carried out by the Project Proponent, but no action has been taken by them despite the said report having been submitted to the Government. Therefore, the applicants had no other forum available to approach but to approach this Tribunal. The Government did not act on the said report of the Human Rights Commission, which led the applicants to approach us.
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 30 of 38
33. In view of above submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, we deem it appropriate that the date i.e. 15.03.2022 shall be treated to be a date, when the cause of action for bringing the present petition before this Tribunal has arisen to the applicants under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Since the present Original Application has been filed before this Tribunal on 26.03.2024, it shall be treated to be within five years' limitation period.
34. It is further mentioned in the above affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the claims of violation of stack PM standards are completely false or highly exaggerated. The Applicants have sought to establish its allegation on the basis of air pollution being attributable to 221 instances, wherein the PM stack emissions of Respondent No.4's calcination plant is said to have exceeded 150mg/nm3. It is further submitted that the applicants have completely misdirected themselves by stating that the instances of stack emissions are in breach of NAAQ standards 2019, which are the standards of "ambient air quality", whereas the emission data produced by the applicants in their application pertains to "stack emission". Stack emission data cannot be compared at all with "ambient air quality" standards and therefore, this allegation is per se incorrect and illogical. Insofar as the standards prescribed by the Notification dated 05.06.2023 of MoEF&CC, it is an admitted case of the Applicants that these standards would come into force only w.e.f. from 05.06.2025. Therefore, the said standards are clearly not in force as on date. Hence, the said Notification dated 05.06.2023 cannot be pressed into service as on date.
35. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the stack emission standards for PM, which are currently applicable to the Respondent No. 4, are prescribed in the CTO, for which PM is 150 mg/Nm3. Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 31 of 38
36. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that Respondent No. 4 has been periodically granted and renewed the Consent to Operate with the latest CTO from time to time. Insofar as the NAAQ standards are concerned, it may be noted that they pertain to "ambient air quality", which further stipulates that the norms are to be complied with 98% in a year, with a 2% margin for error. Insofar as ambient air quality is concerned, Respondent No.4 periodically carries out ambient air quality monitoring through MoEF accredited third party laboratory, data of which shows that at all the times, it was within the parameters fixed by the NAAQ standards.
37. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that insofar as stack data is concerned, the applicants have chosen to cherry pick instances where the PM emissions caused by Respondent No.4's calciner plant has allegedly exceeded 150 mg/Nm3 and have highlighted 221 instances, which have been cherry picked across 37,440 readings taken for an entire year. The readings of the emissions at the Respondent No. 4's calciner plant are taken once in every 15 minutes, thereby resulting in 96 readings for one day, 2880 readings for a month and 37,440 readings for a year. This would indicate that 221 readings out of 37,440 readings in a year constitute about 0.59% of the total readings which is a miniscule amount, while the readings are carried out once in every 15 minutes, the Respondent No. 4 has been able to effectively investigate and correct any anomaly by constantly investing in installing and repairing filters to reduce the emission levels.
38. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that Respondent No.4 has consistently been in compliance with the standards prescribed in the CTO as well as NAAQ standards, and its error margin in the emission readings is a miniscule 0.59%, while some online PM readings Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 32 of 38 from the kiln stack have occasionally exceeded the norms of 150 mg/Nm3, in more than 99% instances, the daily average readings were always within norms.
39. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the Answering Respondent has invested significantly in the Dust Extraction System (DES) in the year 2017-18 to contain fugitive dust emissions. The efficiency of the DES depends on the functioning of the filter bags fitted in the bag house. There are 560 woven fiberglass filter bags installed in four chambers. Although the supplier's warranty with respect to the bags is for 2 years, the Answering Respondent has, as a conscientious corporate citizen, replaced the entire bag house after one year. The entire bags were last replaced on 30.05.2022. The Answering Respondent has been continuously monitoring and replacing the filter bags, as the same may be damaged in normal course of operations. By July 2023, 58 bags had been replaced.
40. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that on 14.08.2023, despite no machinery breakdown, the Answering Respondent conducted a plant shutdown to replace all the filter bags. Thereafter, the plant resumed its operations on 12.09.2023. Since then, there have been no readings above 150 mg/Nm3, except for one instance in March 2024, which lasted for 15 minutes, for which the Answering Respondent took immediate corrective measures.
41. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the Answering Respondent is also currently upgrading its Air Pollution Control devices by installing a state-of-the-art Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) system worth almost Rs.3.5 crores in its Goa Plant, so as to ensure compliance with the SO2 emission norms as specified in the MoEF&CC Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 33 of 38 Notification dated 05.06.2023 which will come into effect from 05.06.2025. Apart from that, the several steps, which have been taken by the Answering Respondent, have also been cited in para no.39 of this affidavit.
42. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the Answering Respondent got a study conducted by BITS Pilani towards measuring the Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) emitted during the manufacture of Calcined Pet Coke at the Respondent No. 4's calcination plant and it was found that the concentration of TSP was found to be much below the permissible statutory limit, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure- R-4/E.
43. As regards the applicants' claim of health issues, the same are said to be false and unsubstantiated because it is urged that the medical reports, which are relied on by the applicants, were issued by a single and same doctor for all 40 supposed patients. Further, a bare perusal of the said medical reports would indicate that vast majority of them are questionnaires containing basic and common symptoms faced by the alleged patients, and the actual diagnosis by the physician is of a minor cough/allergy. It is to be noted that not a single medical report diagnoses any patient with any serious respiratory illness. Further, 22 out of the 40 examined villagers have stated that they face more symptoms when they consume fruits and vegetables grown in their own garden or nearby areas, which statements contradict the claim of the applicants that the actions of the Answering Respondent have prevented cultivation in its nearby areas. It is a matter of fact that more than 56% of the Answering Respondent's own plant premises has green cover, and in fact, there is an abundant presence of healthy fruit bearing trees inside the Answering Respondent's plant premises itself.
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 34 of 38
44. It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4-PP that the Answering Respondent has been carrying out medical examination of its employees and workers, who work at the calcination plant and reside in the vicinity of the same and the medical reports of the same for the year 2023 and 2024 (conducted by two different and independent medical practitioners - Dr. Philip Mascarenhas of Divine Medical Center, Salcete in 2023 and by Dr. Vinayak G Buvaji of Goa Healthcare in 2024) unequivocally show that the employees were fit and free from any such occupational health hazards.
45. To the above reports, learned counsel for the applicants has rebutted by saying that these reports were of general nature and individual employees were not medically examined for their specific ailments, rather number of patients have been mentioned that they were examined, which cannot be taken to be an adequate report to assess that none of the employees of Respondent No.4 suffered from any kind of health issues, which are being alleged by the applicants, to have been suffered because of the activities of the plant in question.
46. We do not accept above argument of learned counsel for the applicants because had the employees been suffering from serious ailments, some or the other employees would certainly have made some allegations in that regard independently. We cannot believe this fact that the present case, which is going on, would not be in the knowledge of the employees. Even the applicants had liberty to obtain reports of some of the employees of the industry of Respondent No.4 to get themselves examined from the Doctor and submitted their report. The reports, which are presented from the side of applicants, also appear to be of general nature, not indicating therein any severe ailments to have been suffered on account of the activities being done in the industry of Respondent No.4. Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 35 of 38
47. Respondent No.4-Project Proponent has filed affidavit of compliance dated 18.09.2024, in compliance with the recommendations made in the Joint Inspection Report dated 28.05.2024. A perusal of the same would indicate that whatever recommendations have been made by the Joint Committee, either have been complied with or effective action is in the process of being taken.
48. Respondent No.4-Project Proponent has filed Sur-rejoinder affidavit dated 23.07.2025, wherein we find that it contains nothing new but has reiterated the same facts, which we have already dealt with above, while dealing with its earlier affidavits. Therefore, we are not reproducing the same here.
49. Respondent No.4-Project Proponent has filed another affidavit dated 07.01.2026 in response to the documents submitted by the applicants on 31.07.2025, in which there is nothing but position of law has been given.
50. Applicants have filed additional affidavit dated 14.01.2026, wherewith Consent Inspection Report dated 04.09.2025 has been annexed as Annexure A-1, which pertains to operation of FGD system, wherein the applicants have indicated at serial nos.33 to 37, which pertain to as to whether ambient monitoring is carried out or not; whether report is submitted as per consent condition; whether environmental statement submitted; whether all consent conditions are complied with; and whether Bank Guarantee is submitted. Against all these conditions, it is recorded that these directions were not complied with.
51. But we may mention here that above inspection report is in respect of application for Consent to Operate (Expansion) for operation of FGD system and after consideration of this, Consent to Operate dated 23.01.2026 has been granted to Respondent No.4-Project Proponent, a copy of which was Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 36 of 38 provided by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 across the Dias to us. This Consent to Operate would indicate that after being satisfied from all the angles, the Project Proponent has been granted the said CTO by the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB). Therefore, it cannot be held, at this stage, that there were any violations found on the part of the Project Proponent at the time of grant of this consent.
52. After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire record in depth, we are of the firm opinion that the present Original Application is not time barred. Therefore, this issue is decided against Respondent No.4 and hold that there was no reason as to why we should not hear the present Original Application, for which reasoning has been given by us above.
53. When it is very much clear from the documentary evidence, which we have discussed above, that valid Consent to Operate is already in force, therefore, there is no reason as to why we should allow the request of the applicants for shifting of the industry of the Project Proponent to another site or pass an order to close down the same, particularly, in view of the fact that the Joint Committee Report has clearly indicated that all the directions, which were issued to Respondent No.4, have been complied with by and large and whatever still remains to be complied with, is in the process of being complied with. It appears to be only an apprehension of the applicants that the industry of Respondent No.4 is creating huge pollution at the site in question, which is causing ailments to the local residents.
54. In view of above observations, the present Original Application deserves to be disposed of and is accordingly disposed of. Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 37 of 38
55. Pending application also stands disposed of.
56. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM February 27, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2024 (WZ) I.A. NO.209 OF 2024 (WZ) P.Kr.
Original Application No. 80 OF 2024 (WZ) Page 38 of 38