National Green Tribunal
Ashok G vs State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its ... on 24 June, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.14:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 271 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ashok G. and Ors. ..... Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 24.06.2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. B.Mohan
For Respondent(s): Mr. Darpan K.M. for R1, R2, R4 to R8.
Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R3.
Mr. K.C. Ariga for R11
ORDER
1. The above case has been posted today for hearing as well as considering the objections. As per order dated 06.03.2020, this Tribunal had appointed a joint Committee and directed them to submit a report regarding the allegations made in the application in respect of the operation of 11th respondent-unit. 1
2. Accordingly, the inspection was conducted by the Joint Committee and they had submitted the report which was extracted in para 3 of the order dated 21.01.2021. This Tribunal had granted time to the applicant to submit their objections, if any to the report. Subsequently, the applicant also filed their objections to the report.
3. When the matter came up for hearing today, Mr. B. Mohan represented the applicant. Mr. Darpan K.M. represented respondents 1, 2, 4 to 8, Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu represented 3rd respondent and Mr. K.C. Ariga represented 11th respondent.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Pollution Control had filed their para-wise reply with respect to the objections submitted by the applicant.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted though the Committee was constituted with District Collector but he had not participated in the inspection, instead the Assistant Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District attended the inspection. Further, the documents produced by the applicant along with the application, namely, Joint Spot Inspection Report of this area, which relates to the crusher unit owned by Shri Harshendra Kumar states that the unit is adjacent to the main road and at about 50 meters away there are residential houses and inhabitants. It was also mentioned in the report that during 2 inspection, it was found that stone powder is dumped near crusher unit. The report was signed by Deputy Director (Incharge), Department of Mines and Geology, Mangalore, Additional Deputy Commissioner & Additional District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore and Geologist, Mines and Minerals Department, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District.
6. Further, the Learned Counsel for the applicant also relied on Rule 6 of The Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers (Amendment) Act, 2013, wherein the safe distance was provided as 100 meters from limits of major district roads or other roads. But as regards, one of the lease area, the distance from the road was not mentioned. According to the Learned Counsel the main allegation was also regarding sound pollution and dust pollution and inspection was conducted at the time when quarries were not in operation and as such there is no possibility for assessing the sound pollution. Learned Counsel also submitted that inspection was not conducted in the presence of the applicant and the measurements from the houses etc were not properly done. He has also submitted that the Committee has not considered the water quality in the well or in the compound of the houses of the complainants and also the neighbouring agricultural lands. Further, the objections were not considered 3 by the Committee but only Pollution Control Board has given para-wise reply which is not sufficient.
7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submitted that the Pollution Control Board has properly considered the objections and given para-wise reply. Further, all criteria have been considered and only thereafter the Committee had prepared the report. Further, the reason for deputing some other officer by the District Collector was mentioned in the report itself and as such there is no illegality in deputing somebody in his place to facilitate the inspection being done in his absence to avoid delay. Learned Counsel also submitted that two of the applicants were present at the time of inspection conducted by the Joint Committee and their objections and views were also considered which is evident from the report of the Joint Committee and it cannot be said that the report is prepared behind their back and they were not aware of the inspection conduction as contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicant.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the crusher-unit, Mr. K.C. Ariga, submitted that the Committee has considered all the aspects and most of the lease area is away from the safe distance as provided under Rule 6 and as such there is no pollution caused on account of the operation of the 11th respondent-unit 4 and there is no necessity for conducting any further inspection, as they have considered all these aspects.
9. The grievance in this application is regarding the pollution as well as violation of citing criteria in establishing the crusher unit of 11th respondent. Though, the application was filed in the year 2017, since there were only pleadings filed by the parties, this Tribunal felt to ascertain the real situation and appointed a Joint Committee to go into the issue and submit a report. The Joint Committee consists of District Collector, as one of the members but the report submitted by the Committee shows that the District Collector did not attend the inspection, instead Assistant Commissioner attended the inspection as deputed by the District Collector and the reasons mentioned in the report was that since the District Collector was infected with Covid, he was not in position to accompany the Committee and in order to facilitate quick inspection and submission of report, he had delegated the responsibility to another official in his place. So, we do not find anything wrong in delegating the responsibility to an officer by District Collector, if he could not be personally present for the purpose on account of his ill health and it cannot be said that the official so delegated is incompetent to file the report representing the District Collector and that will not be a ground 5 to invalidate the report as contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicant.
10. We are not going into the merits of the report or the submissions made. The Committee had submitted the report and the applicant had also filed objections to the same. When detailed objections has been filed by the applicant, then the Committee had to consider those objections and give their explanation regarding the same as to how the objections raised by the applicant is not sustainable. But in this case, only the Pollution Control Board has given the para-wise reply for the same. Further, it is seen from the report that at the time when inspection was conducted, the crusher unit was not in operation. Further, it is also mentioned in the report itself that in order to ascertain the vibration that is likely to be caused on account of explosion that is being carried out a study will have to be conducted. So that shows, that without ascertaining the nature of vibration that is likely to be caused on account of the quarrying operation done by 11th respondent, which is also incidental to crusher unit it cannot be said that there was no violation committed by the 11 th respondent or there is no possibility of any type of pollution on account of their operations. The 11th respondent is having number of leases and the nature of leases and their location have been mentioned in the report but as regards the first lease area is 6 concerned, they have not mentioned about the distance criteria from the road to that place. Further, they have not mentioned anything about the locations of schools, lake etc as has been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the applicant and as has been narrated in the Joint Spot Inspection Report relied upon by the applicant, which was conducted by an officer in higher rank than the person, who attended the Joint Inspection. Further, it appears from the report that they were only relying upon some statements made by some of the parties and it is not clear as to whether they were convinced about the report mentioned and they have only mentioned that it was reported that there is no violations etc. That also shows the non-application of mind of the Committee while preparing the report. Further, the water analysis was done from the property where the crusher unit is situated and not from the houses of the complainant etc. So, in order to ascertain whether there is any possibility of pollution to water on account of the operation of the 11th respondent-unit, the objections raised by the applicant ought to have been considered by the Joint Committee. So under such circumstances, we feel that the Joint Committee has to be directed to inspect the quarry/crusher unit again without delay, at the time when the crusher units are in operation and ascertain the nature of 7 pollution that is likely to be caused as complianed of by the applicant and then submit a fresh report to this Tribunal.
11. The Committee is also directed to go into the objections filed by the applicant to the report submitted by the Joint Committee and ascertain those facts and report about the same as well in the report to be submitted. The Committee is directed to give notice of their inspection to the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, so that he can make his representation at the time of inspection and submit his objections, without obstructing the work of the Committee so that the Committee members can consider those objections also and file a report on those aspects as well.
12. The Committee is also directed to take into account the Joint Sport Inspection report relied upon by the applicant produced along with the application signed by Deputy Director (Incharge), Department of Mines and Geology, Mangalore, Additional Deputy Commissioner & Additional District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore and Geologist, Mines and Minerals Department, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District dated 24.10.2013 and consider those aspect also while preparing the report.
13. If the District Collector is not able to attend the inspection personally due to its official commitments or otherwise then he 8 may depute an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate so that the inspection can be carried out, in tune with the directions given by this Tribunal.
14. Suppose, the vibration test also has to be conducted the Committee is at liberty to avail the services of an expert on that aspect and submit a report on that aspect as well instead of deferring the same to a future date. For this purpose the 11 th respondent is directed to conduct the vibration test while the unit is conducting blasting for the purpose of extraction of metal for their crusher unit.
15. The Committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before 06.08.2021 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules.
16. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the members of the committee immediately, so as to enable them to comply with the directions.
17. For consideration of further report, post on 06.08.2021.
...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ...............................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.271/2017 24th June, 2021. AM.
9