National Green Tribunal
Satnam Singh vs Central Pollution Control Board on 6 November, 2025
Item No. 26 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No. 602/2023
( I.A. No. 58/2024 )
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sardar Satnam Singh,
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholia
Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur
Uttar Pradesh Applicants
Versus
1. Central Pollution Control Board,
Through its Member Secretary,
East Arjun Nagar. Parivesh Bhawan, Delhi-110032.
Email: [email protected]
2. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Through its Member Secretary,
Building No. TC-12V, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar. Lucknow-226010,
Email: ms auppeb.in.
3. Regional Officer,
Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Lucknow
Through its Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H. Aliganj,
Lucknow, U.P.-226024.
Email: [email protected]/[email protected].
4. Ministry of Power, Govt. of India
through its representative,
'F' Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Email: [email protected].
5. Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India,
through its representative,
Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi,
Email: [email protected]/[email protected].
6. Pradhan,
Gram Panchayat Maksudapur,
Majra Kuiya Maholiya,
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus
I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
2
Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-242042
7. Bajaj Energy Pvt. Limited,
through its Plant In-charge,
Maksudapur, District Shahjahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-242042
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the Applicant.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Advocate for respondent no. 1-CPCB (Through VC). Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Advocate for respondent no. 2-UPPCB (Through VC). Mr. Alok Agarwal, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Mr. Ankur Kashyap and Mr. Bhishm Pratap Singh, Advocates for respondent no. 7-BEPL. None for respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER Judgment Reserved on:- 19.05.2025 Judgment pronounced on :- 06.11.2025 Judgment PRONOUNCED BY: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JM
1. Sardar Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholia Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh made complaint on public grievances portal of this Tribunal enclosing therewith copy of letter petition dated 30.06.2023 signed by him and other residents of Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholia Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 3
2. The above said letter petition has been treated and registered as O.A. No. 602/2023 for exercise of suo motu jurisdiction in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V/s. Ankita Sinha and others 2021 SSC Online SC 897.
3. The applicants have raised the grievances regarding causing of air pollution by 90 MW power plant of respondent no. 7-M/s. Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd., set up at village Maksudapur. The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicant is reproduced as under:
"विषयः बजाज पािर प्ाांट की प्रदू वषत राख के सम्बन्ध में।
मकसूदापुर में बजाज एनजी प्राइवेट लिलमटे ड मकसूदापुर के नाम से 90 मेगावाट का पावर प्ाां ट गाां व मकसूदापुर, थाना बांडा, तहसीि पुवायाां , जनपद शाहजहााँ पुर उत्तर प्रदे श में स्थालपत हैं । बजाज एनजी प्राइवेट लिलमटे ड से लनकिने वािी राख से अत्यांत प्रदू षण हो रहा है और प्रदू लषत राख (फ्लाई ऐश) को शारदा नहर के पूवी पटरे पर डािा जा रहा हैं । फ्लाई ऐश (राख) डािने के लिए पावर प्ाां ट के पास अपनी ऐशडाईक (तािाब) नहीां हैं। हररयािी की व्यवस्था नहीां की गई हैं । जनता का जीना रहना मुश्किि कर लदया हैं । शारदा नहर के पटरे पर गाां व के िोगो के लनकिने के लिए सरकारी खडां जा डािा गया था। जो राख िे जाने वािे टर कोां द्वारा खराब कर लदया गया हैं । आने जाने वािोां को लनकिने में परे शानी हो रही हैं । प्रदू लषत राख से लकसानोां की फसिें बबाा द हो रही हैं । गाां व सलडया को जाने वािे मागा पर राव डािी जा रही हैं । उड रही राख से िोगोां का लनकिना मुश्किि हैं । लबिसांडा बांडा रोड श्कस्थत गाां व मकसूदापुर गाां व के पास रोड पर राव डािकर पहाड बना लदया है ।
गाां व के िोगो का रहना दु भर कर लदया है ।
पावर प्ाां ट के पास रह रहे िोगोां का जीना मुश्किि कर लदया है । गाां व के िोग बाहर बैठ नहीां सकते सौ नहीां सकते खाने में बजाज पावर प्ाां ट जहरीिी राख लमि रही है और कपडोां में प्रदू लषत राख से िोग बीमार हो रहे हैं ।
1- बजाज पावर प्ाां ट की प्रदू लषत राख का गांदा पानी खन्नौत नदी में डािा जा रहा है लजससे गाां व के िोगोां के पशु, जांगिी पक्षी, मछिी, कीडे मकोडे पानी पीकर मर रहे हैं ।
2- पावर प्ाां ट की लिमनी से लनकिने वािे प्रदू षण और प्रदू लषत राख से लकसानोां की फसिें बबाा द हो रही हैं । पशुओां के खाने वािे िारे में प्रदू लषत राख लगर रही पशु िारा खाकर बीमार हो रहे हैं पशुओां में तरह तरह की बीमाररयाां फैि रही है 3- बजाज एनजी पावर प्ाां ट की लिमनी से लनकिे वािी राख को रात में बाईपास कर प्रदू लषत राख उडा दी जाती है । लजससे साां स, दमा, कैंसर, आां खोां आलद रोग तरह-तरह की बीमाररयाां पनप रही हैं ।
4- बजाज पावर प्ाां ट मकसूदापुर के पास के गाां व मकसूदापुर, अजोधापुर, भाां भी, उदरा लटकरी, कुरै या किाां , ईसापुर आलद गाां वोां में प्रदू लशात राख उडकर जा रही है ।
5- बजाज पावर प्ाां ट से लनकिने वािी राख को टर कोां में भरकर लतरपाि से ढका नही जाता खुिी राख िे जाते समय रोड पर फैि जाती हैं । लनकिने वािें िोगोां के आां खोां में पडने से िोगोां का एक्सीडें ट हो जाता है।
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.4
6- शारदा नहर के पूवी पटरे पर राख डािकर कर सैिाब के पानी का नािा बांद कर लदया गया है । पानी न लनकिने से पानी का भारी भराव हो जाने से लकसानोां की फसिें बबाा द हो जाती हैं ।
7- फ्लाई ऐश (राख) डािने के लिए ऐशडाईक (तािाब) नहीां बनाया गया है । राख डािने के लिए लकसी भी तरह का कोई भी व्यवस्था नहीां की गई हैं । खुिी जगह में राख डािी जा रही हैं ।
8- बजाज पावर प्ाां ट ने हररयािी के लिए लकसी भी तरह की व्यवस्था नहीां की हैं ।
9- बजाज पावर प्ाां ट के कैम्पस में बजाज पश्किक स्कूि है लजसमें क्षेत्र के कई गााँ व के सैकडो बच्चे पढ़ने आते है । राख के प्रदू षण होने से बच्चे बीमार हो रहे हैं ।
अतः श्रीमान जी से लनवेदन है लक बजाज पावर प्ाां ट की राख से प्रदू षण फैि रहा है व पयाा वरण प्रदू लषत होने के कारण जनता की लजांदगी से श्कखिबाड कर रहे हैं बजाज पावर प्ाां ट के प्रलत जाां ि करा कर उलित कायावाही करने की कृपा करें ।"
4. English Translation by the Registry of the above quoted part of the letter petition reads as under:-
"Subject: Regarding polluted ash from Bajaj Power Plant.
A 90 MW power plant in the name of Bajaj Energy Private Limited Maksudapur is located in village Maksudapur, Thana Banda, Tehsil Puwaiyan, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The ash coming out of Bajaj Energy Private Limited is causing severe pollution and the polluted ash (fly ash) is being dumped on the eastern bank of Sharda Canal. The power plant does not have its own ash dyke (pond) to dump the fly ash. There is no arrangement for greenery. Life of people has become difficult. A government road was laid on the bank of Sharda Canal for the people of the village to pass through which has been damaged by trucks carrying ash. People are facing problem in passing through. The crops of the farmers are getting ruined due to the polluted ash. Rav is being dumped on the road leading to village Sadiya. It is difficult for people to pass through because of the flying ash. A mountain has been created by dumping Rav on the road near village Maksudapur on Bilsanda Banda Road.
It has made life difficult for the people of the village.
It has made life difficult for the people living near the power plant. The people of the village cannot sit outside and cannot sleep. Poisonous ash from the Bajaj Power Plant is getting mixed in their food and people are getting sick due to the polluted ash in their clothes.
1- The dirty water of polluted ash of Bajaj Power Plant is being dumped in Khannaut river due to which animals, wild birds, fish, insects of the villagers are dying after drinking the water. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.5
2- The pollution and polluted ash coming out of the chimney of the power plant is ruining the crops of the farmers. Polluted ash is falling in the fodder given to the animals, animals are getting sick after eating the fodder. Various diseases are spreading among the animals.
3- The ash coming out of the chimney of Bajaj Energy Power Plant is bypassed at night and the polluted ash is blown away. Due to which various diseases like breathing problems, asthma, cancer, eye problems etc. are developing.
4- The polluted ash is flying away to the villages near Bajaj Power Plant Maksudapur, Ajodhapur, Bhambhi, Udra Tikri, Kuraiya Kalan, Isapur etc. 5- The ash coming out of Bajaj Power Plant is not covered with tarpaulin after loading it in trucks. The loose ash gets spread on the road while being transported. People get into accidents when it falls in the eyes of the people passing by.
6- The flood water drain has been blocked by dumping ash on the eastern side of Sharda Canal. Due to water not being drained out, there is heavy waterlogging and the crops of the farmers get destroyed.
7- Ashdyke (pond) has not been built to dump fly ash. No arrangements have been made for dumping ash. Ash is being dumped in open spaces.
8- Bajaj Power Plant has not made any arrangements for greenery.
9- Bajaj Public School is situated in the campus of Bajaj Power Plant in which hundreds of children from many villages of the area come to study. Children are falling ill due to ash pollution.
So, it is requested that pollution is spreading from the ash of Bajaj Power Plant and due to environmental pollution, people's lives are being played with. Please investigate get Bajaj Power Plant investigated and take appropriate action."
5. Vide order dated 23.11.2023 this Tribunal impleaded (i) Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), (ii) Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), (iii) Regional Officer, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Lucknow, (iv) Representative from Ministry of Power, Govt. of India, (v) Representative from Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India. (vi) Pradhan, Gram O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 6 Panchayat Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholiya, Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh and (vii) Bajaj Energy Pvt. Limited through its Plant In-charge, Maksudapur, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh as respondents no. 1 to 7 and ordered issuance of notices to them.
6. By the above said order this Tribunal also directed the Member Secretary, CPCB to get the spot inspection done and ascertain the correct position in respect of compliance of the environmental laws by the Project Proponent and the truthfulness of allegations made in the letter petition about violation of environmental norms by the Project Proponent and to submit a report before this Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks.
7. In compliance of order dated 23.11.2023 inspection of Respondent No.7-BEPL was carried out on 25.01.2024 by a team from Regional Directorate, CPCB, Lucknow along with officials from Regional Office, UPPCB Bareilly and Interim Inspection Report dated 01.02.2024 was filed by CPCB.
8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 02.02.2024, learned Counsel for CPCB submitted that since water sample analysis result was awaited final report has not been filed and sought six weeks time for filing of final report. Learned Counsel for the applicant also sought time to file objections against the Interim Inspection Report filed by CPCB by submitting that correct picture has not been presented in the same. The prayers were allowed accordingly.
9. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2024, Final Report was filed by the CPCB by e-mail dated 12.04.2024. The relevant part of the Report is reproduced below:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.7
B. Factual Status in perspective of Hon'ble NGT order dated 23.11.2023:
S.No. Hon'ble NGT Order Factual Status as on 25.01.2024 (issues) 1 i. There are two temporary fly ash storage sites having 1.5 As per first para acres acre each and during visit it was observed that approx.
"throwing the fly ash by 1800¬2000 MT ash found at site no 1.
the side of Sharda Canal
and that there is no
collection pond near the
power plant for
collecting the fly ash
and there is no provision
for the greenery"
Picture 10: Temporary ash storage location I (Latitude:
28.245529, Longitude: 80.002771) Whereas other site was also having approx. 3800-4000 MT storage of ash. Both sites were found located approx. 50 m distance from left side of Sharda canal. During visit it was found that fly ash was being lifted using trucks for NHAI project.
Picture 11: Temporary ash storage location 2 (Latitude: 28.237002, Longitude: 80.00355) Picture 12: No spillage around the Location-I Picture 13: No spillage around the location-2 over the agriculture field.
ii. The unit has one ash dyke with having area of 6000 MT for storage of the ash. In case of low demand or no demand condition. The fly ash is mostly is being utilize for road making, cement industry, brick manufacturing, filling low O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 8
lying area as per demand etc. A detail of the fly ash utilization by the industry for the year 2022-23 is attached as Annexure -XII.
2 As per second para "It is further alleged that on i. During visit, visual evidence of crop damage was not account of pollution observed by the team around the industry. However, in caused by the power adverse weather conditions possibility of damage of crops plant the crops are being around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out.
damaged and fly ash is
thrown on the road
leading to Village
Sadiya.
Picture 14: No crop damage around the site 2 Picture 15: No crop damage around the site I ii. The team has also visited village Sadiya to ascertain the status of dumping of ash on the either side of road. Ash dumping was not observed by the team during the visit.
Picture 16: No ash either side of road to Sadiya Village Picture 17: Discussion with residents of Sadiya village O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 9
It is also alleged that the iii. One storm water drain is outside of industry with polluted water from the meager flow meeting to River Khannot. Samples were plant is discharged in collected from the drain before the confluence of the river as river Khannot which is well as river Khannot upstream and downstream of this drain affecting aquatic life to ascertain the pollution level in the river. Test of dissolved and the health of cattles oxygen (DO) were performed by the team at both location of drinking the said water. River Khannot. DO found 9.0 mg/l and 8.9 mg/l at upstream and downstream, respectively which are above 4 mg/l for propagation of wildlife and fisheries as per river water quality criteria under DBU class-D. Picture 18: River Khannot after mixing with the drain iv. The unit has installed air pollution control devices for There is also an stack emission as well as fugitive emission control. The team allegation of air has performed stack emission monitoring (point source) and pollution being caused ambient air quality monitoring to ascertain the air pollution status in referenced area. The analysis results are referred in by the power plant. observation number 14 and 15.
v. Seepage from Sharda canal was found in the Further allegation is nearby area along with the canal. To maintain the free flow that the rain water drain of seepage as well as rain water across the ash storage sites is blocked by throwing humes pipes were provided at both the sites. However, in the fly ash as a result of adverse weather conditions possibility of water logging around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out. which the water logging takes place and the crops are destroyed Picture 19: Hume pipe to maintain the free flow vi. During visit, no visual evidence of crop damage was found around the temporary ash storage sites. However, in adverse weather conditions possibility of damage of crops sown around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out. Picture 20: No water logging and no crop destroyed O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 10
vii. Adverse impact was not found on aquatic life, health of cattles and crop damage as per information provided by Chief Veterinary Officer, Additional Director, Fisheries, District Agriculture Officer, Sahjahanpur. Letter attached as Annexure no. XVI.
Recommendation:
1. As the unit does not have valid Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 form State Pollution Control Board for storage of ash (fly ash and bottom ash) in temporary sites, appropriate direction may be given to the unit.
2. The unit should lift the ash stored in temporary site to the end user on priority basis under the supervision of State Pollution Control Board.
3. The unit should utilize their captive ash dyke/pond for storage purpose and optimize the utilization of ash as per notification F.No. 22-13/2019-IA-III, dated August 28th 2019.
4. The unit should ensure that handling ash must be done in compliance of guideline prepare by CPCB in March, 2019.
10. The applicants filed I.A. No. 58/2024 on 30.01.2024 for permitting filing of copies of Consent under Section 21/22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act,) 1981 to M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Maksudapur, Conditions of Consent dated 04.02.2020, Environment clearance dated 09.07.2016 annexed and marked as Annexure-P-2 (Colly) and copies of letters dated 25.10.2023, 28.01.2023, 02.03.2023, 25.01.2023, 25.11.2023, 25.10.2023, 25.01.2023, 03.11.2023, 02.03.2023, 25.01.2023. The true copies of letters dated 25.10.2023, 28.01.2023, 02.03.2023, 25.01.2023, 25.11.2023, 25.10.2023, 25.01.2023, 03.11.2023, 02.03.2023, 25.01.2023 annexed and marked as Annexure-P-3 (Colly) made by Applicant No.2 to the various Government Authorities and photographs and videos annexed and marked as Annexure-P-4 (Colly).
11. Pursuant to service of notice respondent no. 7-BEPL filed reply dated 15.04.2024. In its reply respondent no. 7-BEPL denied the O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 11 allegations made in the Application and pleaded that respondent no. 7- BEPL follows a robust ash management system at the said power plant for the control of pollutants as mentioned in the reply. In order to meet any exigency due to low/no ash demand in the market, an ash pond with capacity of 6000MT ash storage is also constructed near the said power plant. The unit has already developed green belt covering an area of 13.85 acres in and around the power plant and has also developed Miyawaki Forest within the plant premises. In order to ascertain whether there is any impact of power plant operation on nearby crops, aquatic life and animals / cattles, Respondent no.7-BEPL had also approached Agriculture Dept., Fishery Department and Veterinary Department of District Shahjahanpur and all the said departments have confirmed that there is no report of any adverse impact of operations in the power plant on crops, aquatic life and animals / cattles in the nearby areas. There is no dumping of fly ash on any side of the road leading to village Sadiya. The same was also evidenced during the site visit conducted by the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal. There is no discharge of any polluted water from the power plant. In fact, treated water from the power plant is totally reused for fire fighting, coal dust suppression, ash conditioning, dust quenching, and horticulture. Furthermore, the Fishery Department and veterinary Department of District Shahjahanpur have also confirmed that there is no report of any adverse impact of operation of power plant on the aquatic life and animals/cattles in the nearby areas. The environmental monitoring parameters are well within the permissible limits. There is no blockage of rainwater drains by throwing the ash generated at the Power Plant. Infact, for maintaining the free flow of water seepage from the Sharda canal, hume pipes have been installed. Pertinently, the District Agriculture Officer, Shahjahanpur has also confirmed that there is no crop damage on account of the operation of O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 12 the Power Plant. Respondent no.7-BEPL has accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the Application with exemplary costs.
12. This Tribunal considered the CPCB report dated 12.04.2024 on 15.04.2024 and observed in order dated 15.04.2024 as under:-
"2. In terms of the direction of the Tribunal, the report on behalf of the CPCB has been filed. In paragraph 26 and 29, the status of the dumping of fly ash and utilization is disclosed as under:-
"26. Bottom ash and fly ash are being utilize up to 99.2 % (as per format III submitted by unit to Ministry of Power). The detail of ash utilization provided by unit is attached as Annexure-XII.
29. During the visit to the temporary storage site, it was found that dumping of ash in temporary storage site was carried out mechanically in moist condition."
3. The report also annexes Annexure-15, the undertaking of the Project Proponent dated 29.01.2024 about lifting of the fly ash to be completed by March, 2024. There is no material on record that in term of the said undertaking, the fly ash has been lifted and cleared from the spot.
4. Para 14 of the report states:-
"14. A storm water drain flows in front of the unit gate containing wastewater from urban area. The drain ultimately meets to R. Khannot."
5. In respect of the samples collected from storm water drain, meeting to river Khannot and its analysis report, the parameters taken into account are disclosed to be as under:-
"16. The above analysis result of different relevant parameter indicates that their values are in accordance with the prescribed General Standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water as per the E(P)A, 1986, Schedule-VI, no abnormalities were recorded."
6. It needs to be clarified as to how the prescribed general standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water in terms of E(P)A, 1986, Schedule-VI has been applied to ascertain the abnormalities. We also find that the report records that the unit does not have CTO under the relevant enactment to operate both temporary storage site for storage of ash and the report of the CPCB in this regard is as under:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.13
"32. The unit does not have Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 form State Pollution Control Board to operate the both temporary storage sites for storage of ash."
7. The report of CPCB also states that the unit has not complied with the condition of CTE and the findings of the CPCB in this regard are as under:-
"The unit has obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) but does not comply with conditions (green belt development, boundary wall/wind braking wall, leachate proof surface area etc.) laid down in the CTE issued by State Pollution Control Board."
8. The EC conditions in respect of fly ash management and setting up of green belt is as under:-
"13. Fly ash management shall be done as per fly ash notification of Govt. of India.
14. Appropriate safeguard measures to guard against fire hazards shall be undertaken.
15. A green belt of adequate width and density shall be developed around the plant periphery covering at least 33% of the project area."
9. Hence, the Project Proponent is required to place on record the status of compliance of all the EC conditions specially the conditions relating to management of fly ash and development of green belt. The CPCB is required to clarify the anomalies which have been observed in the earlier part of this order, by filing a fresh report. Let the same be filed within a period of four weeks by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
10. The UPPCB is also directed to file the report at least one week before the next date of hearing by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
13. In compliance thereof, CPCB filed report dated 23.07.2024 that the project proponent has lifted the ash from the temporary ash pond/sites as informed by UPPCB vide letter dated 18.05.2024.
14. Respondent no. 7-BEPL filed reply dated 23.09.2024. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.14
"4. Reply with regard to the issue at paragraph 2 (a) above. It is submitted that all the compliance of the Specific EC Condition dated 09.07.2010 (refer pg. 64 of this paper book for the list of specific conditions) have been duly complied with. The Respondent no. 7 is filling herewith a comprehensive chart showing against each specific condition the Compliance status of the same. The chart also refers to the compliance being noted/referred · in the first interim CPCB report dated 01.02.2024 (Pg. 47- 145 of this PBK) · in the second CPCB report dated 12.04.2024 (Pg. 146- 246 of this PBK) · in Reply filed by R-7 Bajaj Energy Limited dated 12.04.2024 (Pg. 247-303 of this PBK) · in the six-monthly EC Compliance report regularly filed by R-7 Bajaj Energy Limited. (A latest such report for period October 2023 to March 2024 is separately being filled herein) A Copy of the comprehensive chart showing against each specific condition the Compliance status of the same is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-1.
A copy of the six-monthly EC Compliance report for period October 2023 to March 2024 filed by the Respondent No.7 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-2."
15. In compliance of Order dated 15.04.2024 inspection of Respondent no.7-BEPL was carried out by officials of Regional Officer, UPPCB, Bareilly on 30.09.2024 and on the basis thereof report dated 21.10.2024 was filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Bareilly.
16. For the sake of brevity and avoiding repletion, the submissions made in replies filed by respondent no. 7-BEPL and report filed by UPPCB are not reproduced and will be referred to, discussed and adjudicated upon in the later part of this judgment at appropriate places.
17. The Applicant Sardar Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholia Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh has sent application by speed post which was received by this Tribunal on 20.04.2025 for withdrawal/filing of the complaint/letter petition dated 30.06.2023 treated and registered as O.A. No.602 of 2023. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 15
18. We have heard submissions made by Mr. Prabhjot Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1-CPCB, Ms. Sthavi Asthana, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2-UPPCB, Mr. Alok Agarwal, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Mr. Ankur Kashyap and Mr. Bhishm Pratap Singh, learned Counsels for respondent no. 7-BEPL and we have gone through the material on record carefully.
19. In their respective submissions learned Counsels for the parties have reiterated their factual and legal submissions made in the application and replies filed to the same.
I.A. No. 58/2024
20. In view of the reasons given I.A. No. 58/2024 is allowed and the documents mentioned therein are taken on record. Grievances of the applicants
21. In the present case the applicants have raised the following grievances in the original application:-
(i) the dirty water of polluted ash of Bajaj Power Plant is being dumped in Khannaut river and animals, wild birds, fish, insects are dying after drinking the same.
(ii) ash coming out of the chimney of the power plant is ruining the crops of the farmers and is also falling on the fodder and the animals are getting sick after eating the fodder.
(iii) Ash coming out of the chimney of the Plant is bypassed at night and blown away which flies over to nearby villages Maksudapur, Ajodhapur, Bhambhi, Udra Tikri, Kuraiya Kalan, Isapur etc. due to which various diseases like breathing problems, asthma, cancer, eye problems etc. are developing.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 16
(iv) while being transported out of the Plant, ash is not covered with tarpaulin after loading the same in the trucks and the loose ash gets spread on the road and also falls in the eyes of the persons travelling nearby resulting in accidents.
(v) The flood water drain has been blocked by dumping ash on the eastern side of Sharda Canal due to which the water is not being drained out which causes heavy waterlogging and destroys the crops of the farmers.
(vi) Ashdyke (pond) has not been built and no arrangements have been made for dumping ash in the Plant due to which ash is being dumped in open spaces.
(vii) Bajaj Power Plant has not made any arrangements for greenery.
(viii) Pollution is spreading from the ash and children studying in Bajaj Public School situated in the campus of the Plant and people living nearby are falling ill due to environmental pollution. Application of Sardar Satnam Singh for withdrawal/filing of the complaint without taking cognizance
22. It may be observed here that Applicant No.1 Sardar Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Maksudapur, Majra Kuiya Maholia Block Banda, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh has sent application by speed post which was received by this Tribunal on 20.04.2025 for withdrawal/filing of the original application without taking cognizance thereof on the grounds that the allegations made through various points in the complaint letter made through him were not true; that he has verified and there is no such problem of pollution in BEPL Power Plant and that some people had lodged a complaint through him to get some benefit from the company for their personal interest. The relevant part of the application reads as under:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.17
"विषय: बजाज पािर प्ाांट की प्रदष ू ण राख के सांबध ां में मेरे द्वारा शिकायती पत्र ददनाांक 30.06.2023, की िापसी के सांबध ां में।
X X X X हम आपको सादर अिगत करना चाह रहे हैं दक मेरे द्वारा ददनाांक 30.06.2023 को बजाज एनजी श्शमटे ड मकसूदापुर पािर प्ाांट के खख्ाफ प्रदष ू ण होने के सांबांध में शिकायत की गई थी, जोदक आसपास के कुछ ्ोगों द्वारा जानबूझ कर मौखखक रूप से की गई थी और मुझे कांपनी के खख्ाफ शिकायती पत्र श्खने के श्ए कहा गया था।
अतः जन ् प्रशतशनशध होने के कारण मैंने उनकी शिकायतो को सांज्ञान में श्या और शिकायती पत्र के माध्यम से मैंने सूचना आप तक पहुांचाई। पत्र में कही गई बातों का सांज्ञान श्या और जाकर के मौके पर उसकी सच्चाई का पता ्गाया तो मुझे ऐसा प्रतीत हुआ दक शिकायती पत्र में विशिन्न वबांदओ ु ां के माध्यम से कही बातें असत्य पाई गई और पूिााग्रह से प्रतीत होती हैं और दि ु ाािना बस उनके शनजी दहतों को साधने के श्ए कही गई है , जो की असत्य और शनराधार है । 'बजाज पािर प्ाांट के अशधकाररयों द्वारा यह िी बताया ि ददखाया गया गया दक ज् एिां िायु प्रदष ू ण के रोकथाम के श्ए उनके यहाां ईटीपी एिां ईएसपी ्गा हुआ है जो प्रिािी रूप से सांचाश्त होता हुआ पाया गया और खन्नौत नदी में पािर प्ाांट द्वारा जशनत प्रदवू षत ज् बहता हुआ नहीां पाया गया । अतः श्रीमान जी से शनिेदन है दक बजाज पािर प्ाांट में प्रदष ू ण की ऐसी कोई समस्या नहीां है और न हीां मौके पर पाई गई। कुछ ्ोगों ने शनजी स्िाथा के श्ए कांपनी से कुछ ्ाि ्ेने के श्ए मेरे द्वारा शिकायत करिाई थी जो की शनराधार एिां असत्य है ।
अतः कोई समस्या नहीां है कृ पया शिकायतों को सांज्ञान में ना ्ें ।"
23. English Translation by the Registry of the above quoted part of the letter reads as under:-
"Subject: Withdrawal of my complaint letter dated 30.06.2023, regarding the pollution of Bajaj Power Plant.
X X X X I would like to respectfully inform you that on 30.06.2023 a complaint was made by me against Bajaj Energy Limited Maksudapur Power Plant regarding pollution, which was deliberately made verbally by some people in the vicinity and I was asked to write a complaint letter against the company. Therefore, being people's representative, I took cognizance of their complaints and conveyed the information to you through the complaint letter. I took cognizance of the things said in the letter and went to the spot and found out the truth of it, then it seemed to me that the things said through various points in the complaint letter were not true and appear to be based on prejudice and ill will. It has been said to serve their personal interests.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.18
It was also told and shown by the officials of Bajaj Power Plant that for prevention of water and air pollution, they have ETP and ESP installed which were found to be operating effectively and polluted water generated by the power plant was not found flowing into the Khannaut river. Therefore, I request you that there is no such problem of pollution in Bajaj Power Plant and neither was it found on the spot. Some people had lodged a complaint through me to get some benefit from the company for their personal interest, which is baseless and untrue.
So there is no problem, please do not take cognizance of the complaints."
(Emphasis added)
24. It may be observed here that the letter petition treated as original application was signed and filed by number of villagers besides Applicant no.1 Sardar Satnam Singh and the same cannot be permitted to be withdrawn or filed without any action on the application made by Applicant No.1 Sardar Satnam Singh alone which is liable to be discarded/dismissed on this ground alone.
25. Further, above said letter petition is based on public injury/cause of action and has been made/filed in public interest seeking remediation of environmental grievances raised to serve the cause of protection and improvement of environment and in the facts and circumstances of the case applicant No.1 Sardar Satnam Singh cannot be permitted to withdraw the same and application sent by applicant No.1 Sardar Satnam Singh for permitting withdrawal thereof is liable to dismissed on this ground also. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India: AIR 1988 SC 2211: (1988) 4 SCC 226: Law Finder Doc Id # 89691 and by this Tribunal in para no. 29 of order dated 27.04.2023 passed in Appeal no. 07/2022 titled as Ghanai Vs. SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh and others.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 19
26. Further, as held in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha (SC) : AIR 2021 Supreme Court 5147 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1890858 this Tribunal has been conferred power to take suo motu cognizance in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and has to enquire into and adjudicate upon the substantial environmental questions raised in the Original Application. Even though in the subsequent application sent by speed post Applicant no. 1 Sardar Satnam Singh has submitted that the allegations made through various points in the complaint letter made through him were not true; that he has verified and there is no such problem of pollution in BEPL Power Plant and that some people had lodged a complaint through him to get some benefit from the company for their personal interest but this statement cannot be accepted on face value. In consonance with its statutory obligations under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, this Tribunal has to respond to the duly verified factual position in the present case with requisite remedial/ameliorative measures for protection of environment and this Tribunal cannot take refuge under any technical dispensation by dismissal of present application as withdrawn on the basis of above said application sent by applicant no. 1.
27. The grievances raised by the applicants have to be considered, enquired into and adjudicated upon in the light of the verification of the factual position and material produced by the applicants and the respondents before this Tribunal.
28. In view of the grievances raised by the applicants following substantial environmental questions arise for adjudication in the present case:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.20
(i) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTO/CTE Conditions and environmental norms regarding management and disposal of fly ash;
(ii) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO Conditions and environmental norms for prevention and control of water pollution;
(iii) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms for prevention and control of air pollution; and
(iv) Whether Respondent no. 7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO Conditions and environmental norms regarding development of green belt.
About BEPL Power Plant
29. However, before proceeding further with the same, salient observations regarding BEPL Power Plant made in reports filed by the CPCB and the UPPCB on the basis of inspection of M/s Bajaj Energy Limited at Village Maksudapur, PO. Maksudapur, Tehsil - Powayan, District Shahjahanpur (U.P.) and available records may be noticed as under:-
1 Name of the industry & Address Bajaj Energy Limited Unit-Maqsoodapur Village & Post- Maqsoodapur, Tehsil-Powyan, District-
Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh Pin- 242042 2 Name of Contact person with designation Sh. Sameer Sabat, Unit Head Phone & Fax No: Mob. No. 9675501913 Ram Prakash Singh, Sr. Manager-EHS Mob. No. 9536908462 3 Year of commissioning 2011-12 4 Category of Industry Large 5 Installed Capacity 2x 45 MW= 90 MW 6 Electricity Generated & raw material requirement Raw material requirement per KWH Description Electricity Coal (Kg) Oil (KL)/Gas Water (KL) Generated (MW) 2023-24 286682 238109.26 - 790750 (till Dec.23) O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 21
2022-23 291559 238784 - 800642
2021-22 198382 156463 - 586494
7
Process details with Material Balance:
Bajaj Energy Limited Unit- Maqsoodpur, Boiler-2x190 TPH CFBC boilers with fuel as Indian Coal from Central Coal field /National coal field Ltd. Make of boiler are Thysan Krupp (Single drum, Cold Cyclone with natural circulation & Balance draft) with operation steam pressure & temp at 110 kg/cm2 & 540 degree centigrade.
Turbine- 2x45 MW is Siemens make with rated Input pressure & Temp of 105 Kg/cm2, 535°C DM Plant- Make Ion Exchange- Capacity of 24 m3/Hours CHP- Make Techpro having capacity 160 TPH Cooling Tower- Make Paharpur, Holding Capacity- 16,200 KL
8. Fuel Consumption 2023-24 (upto Sr No Type of Fuel 25.01.2024) 2022-23 2021-22
1. Coal 238109.26 238784 156463
2. Furnace oil 29.348 44.511 56.7 Details of Coal being utilized:
Year Coal Grade of % Ash % Sulphur Calorific Consumption coal Value , (in Ton) (kcal/kg) 2023-24 (upto 238109.26 Indian 38.66 0.34 3802 25.01.2024) (CCL/NCL) 2022-23 238784 38.36 0.35 3761 2021-22 156463 34.86 0.43 3626 2020-21 143237 31.27 0.41 3943 Statutory Permissions
30. The unit obtained Environmental Clearance dated 09.07.2010 (at pages no. 64 to 67 of the paper book) from SEIAA, UP for the installation of 90 MW Power plant based on coal as fuel in the name of M/s Hindusthan Limited (Sugar unit) further renamed as M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Limited. The unit has obtained NOC dated 23.09.2022 (at pages no.
70 to 79 of the paper book) from Ground Water Department, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, which is valid up-to 17.06.2026. The unit has obtained Consolidated Consent to Operate and Authorization (CCA) dated 02.12.2023 (at pages no. 83 to 87 of the paper book) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from UPPCB, which is valid up-to 31.12.2025. Unit has also obtained authorization dated O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.22
29.01.2021 (at pages no. 88 to 89 of the paper book) for handling of Hazardous and other wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 from UPPCB, which is valid up-to 29.01.2026. Question (i) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTO/CTE Conditions and environmental norms regarding management and disposal of fly ash?
31. The applicants raised the grievances in the original application that that Respondent no. 7-BEPL is throwing fly ash by the side of Sharda Canal and on the road leading to village Sadiya; that there is no collection pond near the power plant for collecting the fly ash; and that rain water drain is blocked by throwing the fly ash as a result of which the water logging takes place and the crops are damaged.
32. In its reply Respondent no. 7-BEPL has submitted that the allegations made in the original application that the Power Plant is causing pollution by throwing the fly ash by the side of Sharda Canal is false in as much as the quantity of fly ash generated in the power plant is very low because the generation capacity of the said power plant is only 2 X 45 MW (90 MW). The said plant operates for 230-240 days in a year because of frequent demand based reserve shutdowns give by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The said power plant operates at very low annual Plant Load Factor (PLF). The Annual PLF for FY 2023-2024 was only 44.21%.
33. The explanation furnished as mentioned above by Respondent no.7-BEPL is devoid of any merit as whatever the quantity of fly ash, low or high, Respondent no. 7-BEPL has to manage and dispose of the fly ash in accordance with the notifications issued by MoEF & CC, and O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 23 EC/CTE/CTO conditions and directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal as the case may be.
34. In EC No. 1077/SEAC/366/209 dated 09.07.2010 following conditions were imposed regarding disposal and management of fly ash:-
"13 Fly ash management shall be done as per fly ash notification of Govt. of India.
14. Appropriate safeguard measures to guard against fire hazards shall be undertaken."
35. Para A(1) and Para A(2) of the Ash Notification dated 31.12.2021 (as subsequently amended on 30.12.2022 and 01.01.2024) prescribe that every coal or lignite based thermal power plant (including captive or co- generating stations or both) shall be primarily responsible to ensure 100 per cent utilization of ash (fly ash, and bottom ash) generated by it in an eco-friendly manner only for the ecofriendly avenues/purposes prescribed at A(2) (i) to (xi) which reads as under :-
i. Fly ash based products viz. bricks, blocks, tiles, fiber cement sheets, pipes, boards, panels, ii. Cement manufacturing, ready mix concrete;
iii. Construction of road and fly over embankment, Ash and Geo-polymer based construction material;
iv. Construction of dam;
v. Filling up of low lying area;
vi. Filling of mine voids;
vii. Manufacturing of sintered or cold bonded ash aggregate;
viii. Agriculture in a controlled manner based on soil testing;
ix. Construction of shoreline protection structures in coastal districts;
x. Export of ash to other countries;
xi. Any other eco-friendly purpose as notified from time to time. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.24
36. Vide order dated 02.02.2024 this Tribunal directed CPCB to get the spot inspection done and ascertain the correct position in respect of compliance of the environmental laws by the Project Proponent and the truthfulness of the allegations made in the letter petition about violation of environmental laws by respondent no. 7-BEPL.
37. In compliance of order dated 23.11.2023 inspection of Respondent No.7-BEPL was carried out on 25.01.2024 by a team from Regional Directorate, CPCB, Lucknow along with officials from Regional Office, UPPCB Bareilly. CPCB filed Interim Inspection Report dated 01.02.2024 and sought time as water sample analysis result was awaited and thereafter CPCB filed Final Report by email dated 12.04.2024. The relevant part of the final report reads as under:-
17. Ash Management Fly Ash Generation: 82134 TPA Bottom ash generation/disposal practiced: 9481 TPA Measures taken for ash handling /collection/disposal: 03 No's Silo Installed.
Details of silos-Number & capacity: Fly Ash Silo-01=200 MT, Fly Ash Silo-02=200 MT, Silo (Bottom Ash)-03=150 MT
18. Fly Ash Utilisation / Disposal (FY - 2023-24 Up to December 2023) Sr No Utilization for Quantity (MT) 1 Brick manufacturing 8693.72 2 Cement Industries 37440.52 X X X X X
26. Bottom ash and fly ash are being utilize up to 99.2 % (as per format III submitted by unit to Ministry of Power). The detail of ash utilization provided by unit is attached as Annexure-XII.
27. The unit has installed two silos of 200 MT capacity each for fly ash and one silo with 150 MT capacity for storage of bottom ash.
28. The transportation of fly ash to cement industry from the unit is carried out by ash truck bulker O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 25
29. During the visit to the temporary storage site, it was found that dumping of ash in temporary storage site was carried out mechanically in moist condition.
30. The unit has one permanent ash dyke in vicinity of unit. Two temporary storage sites were also seen at left bank of Sharda canal. However, no Consent to Operate (CTO) was obtained from State Pollution Control Board for these temporary storage sites.
31. The unit has obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) dated 28.09.2021 (attached as Annexure- XIII) for one site of Latitude: 28.245529, Longitude: 80.002771, but does not comply with conditions (green belt development, boundary wall/wind braking wall, leachate proof surface area etc.) laid down in the CTE issued by State Pollution Control Board. The other temporary storage site i.e. at Latitude:
28.237002, Longitude: 80.00355 was not obtained Consent to Establish (CTE).
32. The unit does not have Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 form State Pollution Control Board to operate the both temporary storage sites for storage of ash.
33. Ash from the both temporary sites was being lifted by the M/s SRSC Infra Private limited for NHAI project Shahjahanpur bypass of NH 731 (PKG1). (Letter attached as Annexure-XIV for reference). Under taking for clearing ash stored at both sites submitted by the unit. (undertaking attached as Annexure-XV) Picture 7: Permanent ash dyke for storage of ash (Latitude: 28.247362, Longitude: 79.995065) Picture 8: No spillage around the site Picture9: Ash lifted by NHAI for utilization using trucks over the agriculture field X X X X X O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 26 B. Factual Status in perspective of Hon'ble NGT order dated 23.11.2023:
S.No. Hon'ble NGT Order Factual Status as on 25.01.2024 (issues) 1 i. There are two temporary fly ash storage sites having 1.5 As per first para acres acre each and during visit it was observed that approx.
"throwing the fly ash by 1800¬2000 MT ash found at site no 1.
the side of Sharda Canal
and that there is no
collection pond near the
power plant for
collecting the fly ash
and there is no provision
for the greenery"
Picture 10: Temporary ash storage location I (Latitude: 28.245529, Longitude: 80.002771) Whereas other site was also having approx. 3800-4000 MT storage of ash. Both sites were found located approx. 50 m distance from left side of Sharda canal. During visit it was found that fly ash was being lifted using trucks for NHAI project.
Picture 11: Temporary ash storage location 2 (Latitude: 28.237002, Longitude: 80.00355) Picture 12: No spillage around the Location-I Picture 13: No spillage around the location-2 over the agriculture field.
ii. The unit has one ash dyke with having area of 6000 MT for storage of the ash. In case of low demand or no demand condition. The fly ash is mostly is being utilize for road making, cement industry, brick manufacturing, filling low O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.27
lying area as per demand etc. A detail of the fly ash utilization by the industry for the year 2022-23 is attached as Annexure -XII.
2 As per second para "It is further alleged that on i. During visit, visual evidence of crop damage was not account of pollution observed by the team around the industry. However, in caused by the power adverse weather conditions possibility of damage of crops plant the crops are being around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out.
damaged and fly ash is
thrown on the road
leading to Village
Sadiya.
Picture 14: No crop damage around the site 2 Picture 15: No crop damage around the site I ii. The team has also visited village Sadiya to ascertain the status of dumping of ash on the either side of road. Ash dumping was not observed by the team during the visit.
Picture 16: No ash either side of road to Sadiya Village Picture 17: Discussion with residents of Sadiya village O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.28
iii. One storm water drain is outside of industry with It is also alleged that the meager flow meeting to River Khannot. Samples were polluted water from the collected from the drain before the confluence of the river as plant is discharged in well as river Khannot upstream and downstream of this drain river Khannot which is to ascertain the pollution level in the river. Test of dissolved affecting aquatic life oxygen (DO) were performed by the team at both location of and the health of cattles River Khannot. DO found 9.0 mg/l and 8.9 mg/l at upstream drinking the said water. and downstream, respectively which are above 4 mg/l for propagation of wildlife and fisheries as per river water quality criteria under DBU class-D. X X X X v. Seepage from Sharda canal was found in the nearby area along with the canal. To maintain the free flow of seepage as well as rain water across the ash storage sites humes pipes were provided at both the sites. However, in adverse weather conditions possibility of water logging around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out.
Picture 19: Hume pipe to maintain the free flow vi. During visit, no visual evidence of crop damage was found around the temporary ash storage sites. However, in adverse weather conditions possibility of damage of crops sown around the temporary storage site can't be ruled out.
Picture 20: No water logging and no crop destroyed vii. Adverse impact was not found on aquatic life, health of cattles and crop damage as per information provided by Chief Veterinary Officer, Additional Director, Fisheries, District Agriculture Officer, Sahjahanpur. Letter attached as Annexure no. XVI.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.29
38. This Tribunal considered the Final Report and observed in its order dated 15.04.2024 as under:-
"2. In terms of the direction of the Tribunal, the report on behalf of the CPCB has been filed. In paragraph 26 and 29, the status of the dumping of fly ash and utilization is disclosed as under:-
"26. Bottom ash and fly ash are being utilize up to 99.2 % (as per format III submitted by unit to Ministry of Power). The detail of ash utilization provided by unit is attached as Annexure-XII.
29. During the visit to the temporary storage site, it was found that dumping of ash in temporary storage site was carried out mechanically in moist condition."
3. The report also annexes Annexure-15, the undertaking of the Project Proponent dated 29.01.2024 about lifting of the fly ash to be completed by March, 2024. There is no material on record that in term of the said undertaking, the fly ash has been lifted and cleared from the spot."
39. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal directed CPCB to clarify the abovesaid anomalies.
40. In compliance thereof, CPCB filed report dated 23.07.2024 that the project proponent has lifted the ash from the temporary ash pond/sites as informed by UPPCB vide letter dated 18.05.2024.
41. In its reply dated 12.04.2024 Respondent No.7-BEPL has submitted that Respondent no.7-BEPL follows a robust ash management system at the said power plant as mentioned below:
"a. For collection of the ash generated during plant operation, 3 nos of dry ash collection siloes are installed. b. No wet ash disposal system is installed at the power plant. c. In order to meet any exigency due to low/no ash demand in the market, an ash pond with capacity of 6000MT ash storage is also constructed.
d. The Power Plant has achieved 100% Ash utilisation. Bed ash, which is primarily used as sand replacement/brick making in construction activities is taken by the vendors. During low demand, this bed ash, in very small quantity, is temporarily stored by such vendors at their land and once demand increases, it is used immediately.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.30
e. There is no throwing of ash by the side of canal, but is kept temporarily on a secured land with side bunds and regular water sprinkling to avoid any slippage into adjacent land or fugitive emissions.
A Photograph of the dry ash collection silos at the answering Respondent's Power Plant is annexed hereto as ANNEXURER- 7/1.
A Photograph of the Ash pond of the answering Respondent is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/2.
A copy of the monthly abstract of Ash Generation and utilisation for the period 01.04.2023 till 31.03.2024 is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/3.
Copies of the Photograph showing bed ash temporarily stored by vendors at their land before sale/disposal is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/4 (Colly)."
42. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal directed Respondent no. 7-BEPL to place on record the status of compliance of all the EC conditions relating to management of fly ash.
43. In compliance thereof reply dated 23.09.2024 has been filed by respondent no. 7-BEPL. The relevant part of the reply filed by respondent no. 7-BEPL is reproduced below:-
"5. Reply with regard to the issue at paragraph 2 (b) above.
i. It is submitted that the Project Proponent has fully complied with all the condition relating to fly ash management and development of green belt.
ii. It is submitted that with regard to the conditions related to the fly ash it is specified in the Environmental Clearance dated 09.07.2010 that "Fly Ash management shall be done as per the fly ash notification of Government of India"
iii. It is submitted that, fly ash is being managed in line with the fly ash Notifications issued from time-to-time. Pertinently the said Notifications were periodically issued on the dates being 14.09.1999, 28.07.2003, 03.11.2009, 28.08.2019 and 31.12.2021 (issued in suppression of notification dated 14.09.1999 and its subsequent amendments) iv. It is submitted that under the said Notification 100% utilization of fly ash is required to be achieved in the manner as set out in the said Notifications. The same is already achieved by Project Proponent.
v. It is submitted that in line with statutory requirements, a fly ash utilization report is also submitted to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on an annual basis and Central Electricity Authority on six-monthly and annual basis. A true copy of the monthly generation and utilisation of the fly ash for O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 31
year 2022¬2023, and 2023-2024 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-3.
vi. It is submitted that the fly ash report is also uploaded on the online portal especially made for the same by the Central Pollution Control Board. Screenshot of the report updated on the CPCB portal are being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-4.
vii. It is submitted that in accordance with Ash Utilization Notification dated 31.12.2021, ash generation and disposal at power plant is also required to be audited by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) approved auditors. Ash audit for FY 2022-23 for the Project Proponent has been carried out by Prof. Arun Prasad, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi and report is directly sent to CPCB, New Delhi. A true copy of the Audit Completion Certificate, as issued by Prof. Arun Prasad is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-5."
44. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal also directed Respondent no.2- UPPCB to file report.
45. In compliance thereof Regional Officer, UPPCB Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh has filed report dated 18.10.2024. In the Inspection Report status of pollution control measures has been given as under:-
11 Ash Management A) Fly Ash Generation: 97969.35 MT/Anumn B) Bottom ash generation/disposal Practiced: 10601.91 MT/Anumn C) Measure taken for ash handling/collection/disposal: 03 no's Silo installed D) Details of silos-Number & capacity:
Fly Ash Silo-01=200MT, Fly Ash Silo-02=200MT, MT/Anon.
12 Fly Ash utilization/disposal (FY March 2023-March 2024)
Sr. Utilization for Quantity (MT)
No.
1 Brick Manufacturing 10398.73 MT/Anumn.
2 Cement industries 49664.00 MT/Anumn.
X X X X X
• The unit has installed two silos of 200MT capacity each
for fly ash and one silo with 150 MT capacity for storage of bottom ash.
• The transportation of fly ash to cement industry from the unit is carried out by ash truck bulker.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 32
Status of Ash Dumping Area/Site :-
1. Permanent ash dyke:-The unit has one permanent ash dyke with having area of 6000 MT for storage of the ash. In case of low demand or no demand condition. The fly ash is mostly is being utilize for mad making, cement industry, brick manufacturing, filling low-lying area as per demand etc.
2. Temporary Ash storage site-1:- During the visit one temporary storage site was in operation, it was found that dumping of ash in temporary storage site was carried out mechanically in moist condition. The unit has obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) for temporary storage site via vide letter dated 16.05.2024 (Attached as Annexure-A5) for one site of Latitude: 28.242389, Longitude: 79.996493. but it was found that green belt development is not sufficient, boundary wall/wind braking wall was not there at the site.
(Notice issued for development of green belt and construction of boundary wall via vide letter dated 30.09.2024).
3. Temporary Ash storage site-2:-
· During the visit it was observed that two closed temporary Ash storage sites were also located at left bank of Sharda canal. One has Area of about 1.5 acres, in village Maksudapur tehseel Powayan District-Shahjahanpur GPS Coordinate 28.237595, 80.003324, earlier, the industry was used to store the fly ash. During the inspection, it was O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.33
noticed that no fly ash is being stored. The industry representative informed that the stored fly ash has been used for the construction of highways by M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Mathura. At the time of inspection, the above mentioned site was found to be at hydraulic level and no dust emission was found. It was found in normal condition.
4. Temporary Ash storage site-3:- Other one has Area of about 1.5 acres, in village Maksudapur tehseel Powayan District-Shahjahanpur GPS Coordinate 28.237583, 80.003388 total area approx 1.5acre. earlier, the industry was used to store the fly ash at the site. At the time of inspection no fly ash storage was found. The industry representative informed the UPPCB team that the stored fly ash has been used for the construction of highways by M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Mathura. At the time of inspection, the above mentioned site was found to be at hydraulic level and no dust emission was found. It was found in normal condition.
X X X X"
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus
I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
34
46. In compliance with order dated 23.11.2023 team from CPCB Regional Directorate, Lucknow carried out the inspection on 25.01.2024 and in compliance with order dated 15.04.2024 Officials from Regional Office, UPPCB, Bareilly carried out inspection on 30.09.2024. In their reports CPCB and UPPCB have mentioned that respondent no. 7-BEPL has one ash dyke having capacity of 6000 MT for storage of ash in case of low demand or no demand condition. However, during the inspection CPCB and UPPCB did not observe any storage of ash in permanent ash dyke and due to that reason did not mention any quantity of fly ash stored in permanent ash dyke.
47. It may be observed here that in its report dated 12.04.2024 CPCB has mentioned that the unit has two temporary storage sites while in its report dated 18.10.2024 UPPCB has mentioned that the unit has three temporary storage sites. CPCB and UPPCB have mentioned that the unit had obtained consent to establish for one temporary storage site as referred above but CPCB found that one temporary storage site was unauthorized while UPPCB found that two temporary storage sites were unauthorized as the unit had not obtained CTE/CTO from UPPCB with respect to the same.
48. As per CPCB report, CPCB found that approximately 1800-2000 MT ash was lying at site no 1 (Latitude: 28.245529, Longitude:
80.002771). The unit had obtained CTE dated 28.09.2021 for above said site (Latitude: 28.245529, Longitude: 80.002771) but did not comply with conditions regarding green belt development, boundary wall/wind breaking wall, leachate proof surface area etc. laid down in the CTE issued by UPPCB.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 35
49. UPPCB found during its visit that one temporary storage site (Latitude: 28.242389, Longitude: 79.996493) was in operation, it was found that dumping of ash in temporary storage site was carried out mechanically in moist condition. The unit had obtained CTE for temporary storage site (Latitude: 28.242389, Longitude: 79.996493) vide letter dated 16.05.2024 but it was found that green belt development was not sufficient, boundary wall/wind breaking wall was not there at the site.
50. It may be observed here that the temporary storage sites regarding which respondent no. 7-BEPL is stated by CPCB and UPPCB to have obtained CTE from UPPCB have different geo-coordinates (geo- coordinates given in CPCB report are Latitude: 28.245529, Longitude:
80.002771 and geo-coordinates given in UPPCB report are Latitude:
28.242389, Longitude: 79.996493). Geo-coordinates of one unauthorized temporary storage site found by CPCB and two unauthorized temporary storage sites found by UPPCB are different (geo-
coordinates of unauthorized temporary storage site found by CPCB are Latitude: 28.237002, Longitude: 80.00355 and geo-coordinates of unauthorized temporary storage site found by UPPCB are GPS Coordinate 28.237595, 80.003324 and GPS Coordinate 28.237583, 80.003388).
51. Respondent no. 7-BEPL is stated by CPCB and UPPCB to have obtained CTE from UPPCB for temporary storage sites but both the CTEs are of different dates and site mentioned by CPCB was granted CTE by UPPCB on 28.09.2021 and site mentioned by UPPCB was granted CTE by UPPCB on 16.05.2024.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 36
52. However, both CPCB and UPPCB found that respondent no. 7- BEPL had not complied with conditions imposed by both CTE dated 28.09.2021 and 16.05.2024.
53. In its report CPCB has mentioned that respondent no. 7-BEPL had not obtained CTO from UPPCB regarding one temporary storage site in respect of which it had obtained CTE dated 28.09.2021 and in its report UPPCB has mentioned that respondent no. 7-BEPL had obtained CTE dated 16.05.2024 in respect of one temporary ash storage site but UPPCB has not mentioned about obtaining of CTO by respondent no. 7-BEPL from it regarding above said site.
54. It may also be observed here that in its report UPPCB has mentioned that notice was issued to respondent no. 7-BEPL vide letter dated 30.09.2024 for development of green belt and construction of boundary wall but UPPCB has not submitted any further report to mention about action taken by respondent no. 7-BEPL for compliance or reply submitted by respondent no. 7-BEPL and further action taken by UPPCB on the basis of reply submitted.
55. CPCB found approximately 1800-2000 mt fly ash at site no. 1 and approximately 3800-4000 mt ash at site no. 2. In its report filed vide affidavit dated 18.10.2024 (pages no. 382 to 397) UPPCB has mentioned about temporary ash storage site no. 1 being in operation in which dumping of ash was carried out mechanically in moist condition but in its report UPPCB has not mentioned about the quantity of fly ash stored in temporary ash storage site no. 1.
56. Since respondent no. 7-BEPL did not obtain CTO from UPPCB regarding any temporary ash storage site, storage of fly ash by O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 37 respondent no. 7-BEPL in the temporary ash storage sites found by CPCB and UPPCB was illegal/unauthorized.
57. In the present case CPCB, UPPCB and respondent no. 7-BEPL have not produced any material before this Tribunal to show that the land of the temporary ash storage sites found by CPCB and UPPCB belonged to respondent no. 7-BEPL. Consequently, factual position regarding ownership/possession of the land of temporary ash storage sites found by CPCB and UPPCB cannot be ascertained.
58. However, non-production of material regarding ownership of the land of temporary ash storage site is not of much significance as the allegations made by the applicants that respondent no. 7-BEPL was not storing fly ash in permanent ash dyke and was storing fly ash in unauthorized sites near Sharda canal in violation of environmental norms are proved.
59. In its report CPCB has mentioned that both the temporary storage sites were found located approximately 50 meters distance from left side of Sharda canal. In its report UPPCB has also mentioned that two closed temporary Ash storage sites were located at left bank of Sharda canal.
60. It may be observed here that UPPCB had granted CTE dated 28.09.2021 in respect of one of the temporary ash storage site which was admittedly located approximately at the distance of 50 meters from left side of Sharda canal.
61. We are of the considered view that grant of CTE for temporary ash storage site at the distance of 50 meter from left side of Sharda canal was O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 38 not proper as the same involved the possibility of pollution of canal water due to strong wind/heavy rain.
62. It may also be observed here that UPPCB had granted CTE dated 28.09.2021 and 16.05.2024 but in CTE details of the land and also geo-coordinates thereof were not mentioned and the CTE did not specifically mention that the same were granted for temporary ash storage sites and the CTE were granted without due application of mind in format used for grant of CTE for production units. UPPCB has not produced copies of the application submitted by respondent no. 7-BEPL for grant of CTE to disclose the reasons given for such temporary storage of ash in open spaces outside the premises of the Power Plant. We are of the considered view that respondent no. 7- BEPL has sufficient permanent ash dyke and silos and could not store fly ash outside the premises of the Power Plant without authorization in this regard in the EC and also without any lawful/valid justification for the same and UPPCB could not grant CTE simply on the ground of respondent no. 7-BEPL applying for the same without taking into consideration adverse environmental impact of such temporary storage.
63. We find that despite noticing violations on the part of respondent no.7-BEPL in storage of ash in unauthorized temporary sites, the CPCB did not issue any directions to the UPPCB and did not initiate any enforcement action concerning the unauthorized establishment and operation of the fly ash storage sites. The UPPCB also failed to exercise its statutory mandate and did not issue any directions to respondent no. 7- BEPL and did not take appropriate remedial measures to abate the environmental pollution arising from unauthorized storage of fly ash near the canal and agricultural land. UPPCB has also not taken any action O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 39 against respondent no. 7-BEPL for violation of environmental norms and non-compliance of CTE conditions and has not imposed any environmental compensation on respondent no. 7-BEPL in accordance with "Polluter Pays Principle" to meet the costs to be incurred for remediation of environmental damage thereby caused.
64. Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its Judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No(S). 757-760 of 2013 titled as Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. etc. alongwith connected Civil Appeal No.(S) 1977-2011 Of 2013, held that the State Pollution Control Board can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 but the power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts shall be enforced only after detailing the principle and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation.
65. UPPCB is directed to take appropriate action for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no. 7-BEPL for violation of EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms and also for realization thereof and thereupon for utilization of the same for remediation of environmental damage caused by preparing and implementing an action plan in consultation with District Environment Committee, District Shahjahanpur. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 40
66. In its report UPPCB has mentioned that respondent no. 7-BEPL is utilizing ash for road making, cement industry, brick manufacturing, filling low lying area as per demand etc.
67. Respondent no. 7-BEPL has produced copies of statements for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 and the relevant part of the statements is reproduced below:-
Period of Report : 1st April, 2022 to 31st March, 2023 SL ASH GENERATION AND UTILIZATION (in LMT) no Ash Content of Coal % Ash Utilization Coal consumed Ash generation Ash Utilized Month (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 April-22 0.26809 27.32 0.07325 0.07017 95.8 2 May-22 0.16833 37.73 0.06351 0.06681 105.2 3 June-22 0.21887 42.09 0.09213 0.09295 100.9 4 July-22 0.31626 43.00 0.13600 0.12875 94.7 5 August-22 0.34257 41.15 0.14096 0.13553 96.1 6 September-22 0.20438 41.40 0.08461 0.08715 103.0 7 October-22 0.05461 41.39 0.02261 0.02994 132.5 8 November-22 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 0.00000 0.0 9 December-22 0.03335 38.31 0.01278 0.00780 61.0 10 January-23 0.37268 36.90 0.13751 0.14218 103.4 11 February-23 0.17900 38.41 0.06875 0.06257 91.0 12 March-23 0.22970 36.60 0.08406 0.08496 101.1 TOTAL 2.38784 38.37 0.91616 0.90881 99.20 Period of Report : 1st April, 2022 to 31st March, 2023 SL no MODE OF ASH UTILIZATION AND UTILIZATION IN EACH MODE (in LMT) In Reclamation of Low Lying area In Agriculture/ Waste Land based Bricks/ Blocks/ In Hydro sector in RCC Dam In making of Fly Ash Portland Pozzolana Highways & Roads Including Flyovers Part replacement of In Manufacture of In construction of cement in concrete In Mine Filling In Ash Dyke Raising Development tiles etc. Cement Others Month Construction (1) (2) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 1 April-22 0.00406 0.06611 0.00000 2 May-22 0.00780 0.05901 0.00000 3 June-22 0.00959 0.08336 0.00000 4 July-22 0.01197 0.11677 0.00000 5 August-22 0.01411 0.12142 0.00000 Septembe 6 0.00810 0.00820 0.07085 r-22 October-
7 0.00273 0.00632 0.02090
22
November
8- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
22
December-
9 0.00068 0.00058 0.00654
22
January-
10 0.01614 0.02816 0.09788
23
February-
11 23 0.00617 0.01395 0.04245
12 March-23 0.00976 0.06466 0.01054
TOTAL 0.09111 0.56854 o 00 0 0.24915 0 0 0
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus
I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
41
Period of Report : 1st April, 2023 to 31st March, 2024 ASH GENERATION AND UTILIZATION (in LMT) % Ash Utilization Ash generation Coal consumed Ash Content of Coal Ash Utilized Month Sl.NO.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 April-23 0.187 33.199 0.062 0.062 100.0
2 May-23 0.222 38.956 0.087 0.087 100.0
3 June-23 0.308 38.908 0.120 0.120 100.0
4 July-23 0.309 38.315 0.118 0.118 100.0
5 August-23 0.404 43.778 0.177 0.177 100.0
6 September 23 0.360 39.142 0.141 0.141 100.0
7 October-23 0.361 36.924 0.133 0.133 100.0
8 November-23 0.119 37.773 0.045 0.045 100.0
9 December- 23 0.111 33.826 0.038 0.038 100.0
10 January-24 0.264 31.850 0.084 0.084 100.0
11 February-24 0.132 37.325 0.049 0.049 100.0
12 March-24 0.092 34.667 0.032 0.032 100.0
TOTAL 2.869 37.839 1.086 1.086 100.000
Period of Report : 1st April, 2023 to 31st March, 2024 MODE OF ASH UTILIZATION AND UTILIZATION IN EACH MODE (in LMT) In Hydro sector in RCC Dam Construction based Bricks/ Blocks/ In Reclamation of Low Lying area In making of Fly Ash Portland Pozzolana Highways & Roads Including Flyovers Part replacement of In Manufacture of In construction of cement in concrete In Mine Filling In Agriculture/ Waste Land Sl.NO.
tiles etc. Cement Others Month In Ash Dyke Raising Development (1) (2) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 1 April-23 0.005 0.012 0.046 2 May-23 0.008 0.025 0.053 3 June-23 0.011 0.057 0.052 4 July-23 0.012 0.030 0.077 5 August-23 0.016 0.034 0.127 6 September- 0.012 0.055 0.074 23 7 October-23 0.016 0.094 0.023 8 November- 0.005 0.040 -0.001 23 9 December- 0.003 0.027 0.008 23 10 January-24 0.008 0.056 0.020 11 February-24 0.005 0.039 0.006 12 March-24 0.004 0.027 0.000 TOTAL 0.104 0.497 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.485 0 0 0
68. A perusal of statement for the period from 01.03.2022 to 31.03.2023 shows that out of 0.91616 LMT, respondent no. 7-BEPL utilized 0.09111 LMT in making of fly ash based bricks/blocks/tiles etc., O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 42 and utilized 0.56854 LMT in manufacture of Portland Pozzolana Cement and 0.24915 LMT in reclamation of low lying area.
69. A perusal of statement for the period from 01.03.2023 to 31.03.2024 shows that out of 1.086 LMT, respondent no. 7-BEPL utilized 0.104 LMT in making of fly ash based bricks/blocks/tiles etc., and utilized 0.497 LMT in manufacture of Portland Pozzolana Cement and 0.485 LMT in reclamation of low lying area.
70. It may be observed that as per the above referred statements there was no utilization of fly ash in construction of highways and roads including flyovers, part replacement of cement in concrete, in Hydro Sector, in RCC dam construction, in Ash Dyke raising, in mine filling and in agricultural waste land development.
71. Management of huge quantity of ash (fly ash, bottom ash and pond ash) generated from coal fired Thermal Power Plants (TPPs) is a serious environmental challenge and there are concerns regarding potential for release of toxic chemicals in the leachates from the fly ash. Therefore, scientifically sound fly ash management is needed so that environmental concerns can be adequately and reliably identified and addressed.
72. This Tribunal has observed in number of cases that the project proponents enter into agreements with the third parties for disposal of fly-ash which report compliance by submitting that the fly-ash is being disposed of in low lying areas without following the prescribed guidelines.
73. In O.A. No. 744/2022 disposed of with O.A. No. 277/2021 Moharram Ali Vs State of UP and Liyakat Ali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, this Tribunal held that the storage and use of fly ash for landfill O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 43 through contractor is unscientific and not legally permissible and passed directions for proper disposal of the fly ash.
74. In O.A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others this Tribunal observed in its order dated 06.10.2023 that fly- ash generated by coal based industries contains harmful heavy metals and it will be appropriate that the same is not utilized for filling of any agricultural areas and is utilized by cement or brick making industry. Accordingly this Tribunal directed UPPCB to file affidavit mentioning the mechanism evolved for verifying disposal of fly ash. In compliance thereof copy of draft mechanism for proper utilization of fly ash generated by coal based industries was placed before this Tribunal by UPPCB. The relevant part of the draft mechanism reads as under:-
"Draft Mechanism for proper utilization of fly ash generated by coal based industries in compliance to directions issues by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs State of U.P. Issues relating to disposal of fly ash from coal based industries in State of U.P. I. It has been a general practice by several industries using coal as fuel in boilers, to dispose the fly ash by filling in low lying areas. However, as a general practice adopted by the industries, collection and disposal of the fly ash from the industries is carried out through local contractors.
II. Industries/Contractors some time execute an agreement with the owners of lands for disposal of the fly ash. However, instead of usage of fly ash for filling up the low lying areas, the land is used as an open storage/dumping site for fly ash.
III. The lands, being an open area with no adequate cover at the boundaries and water sprinkling systems, the dispersion of fly ash causes air pollution in the nearby areas.
IV. Further, there are possibilities of degradation of top soil by storage/dumping of coal based fly ash on lands.
V. Hon'ble NGT has also considered the disposal of fly ash in low lying areas as an unscientific mechanism and have passed directions for proper disposal of the fly ash. In O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.44
the matter of O.A. No. 744/2022 with OA No. 277/2021 Moharram Ali Vs State of UP and Liyakat Ali Vs State of UP,Hon'ble NGT has issued directions dated 22.03.2023as below:
„ ................7. It is established that plastic waste and fly ash are being unscientifically stored and disposed of in violation of Rules and to the detriment of environment. Such storage and use of landfill through contractor is not legally permissible. Stand that waste is being used for cement plants does not appear to be factually correct as no name of cement plant has been given and needs to be verified by manifest system. Compensation determined does not take into account financial capacity of the units to determine the deterrent element nor the value of the extent of damage and the cost of restoration ......
Draft Mechanism for proper disposal of Fly ash by Lame air polluting industries:-
Practice of disposal of fly ash through contractors at nearby low lying areas is not an effective and environmental friendly mechanism for disposal of fly ash because generally it is observed that the fly ash is usually being dumped on the agriculture land without having sprinklers and covering the agriculture land boundary by green covers for arresting the fly ash from traversing in nearby residential areas.
1. With respect to effective disposal of fly ash, MoEF&CC vide notification dated 31.12.2021 has issued guidelines for utilization of fly ash generated in coal based Thermal Plants.
Similar directions/mechanisms can also be adopted by other coal based industries. Further, CPCB has Issued OM dated 06.03.2023 authorizing auditors from recognized institutions for regular auditing of disposal of fly ash as per the guidelines. Hence, taking in consideration the general on site mechanism adopted by coal based industries, the following mechanisms can be adopted by other industries in line with the notifications issued by MoEF&CC and OM issued by CPCB for coal based Thermal Plants, to ensure that industries are disposing all the fly ash generated by environmental friendly mechanism :
i) There should be no involvement of a third party/contractor for collection and disposal of fly ash generated by the industries to ensure proper disposal of the fly ash being done by industries as per the agreements.
Instead of disposing/dumping the fly ash on land at several agriculture land/low lying areas on day to day basis, every coal based large units may install dedicated silos for storage of dry fly ash silos for at least sixteen hours of ash based on installed capacity and it shall be reported upon to the UPPCB from time to time.
ii) Proper agreements / MOU needs to be signed between industries directly with the Cement industry/brick kilns/fly ash manufacturing units etc. The industry shall also submit the total quantity of fly ash being sent to users which shall O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 45
then be verified by U.P. Pollution Control Board cross verifying the quantity utilized by the users.
iii) As per CPCB OM date 6 March 2023, CPCB has authorized auditors from various technical and recognized institutions for carrying out fly ash audits and submission of reports to CPCB and UPPCB. Industries may involve the authorized auditors for carrying out fly ash audit and submit the audit report to CPCB and UPPCB on regular basis (Quarterly/Half yearly/ Yearly) Scope of Work to carry out the audit may contain the following important mechanism: -
a. Verification of ash generation data pertaining to the financial year based on inspection of records of coal receipt/consumption and average ash content in coal and comparison of this data with the information provided by the industries.
b. Verification of fly ash and bottom ash utilization data pertaining to the financial year based on inspection of records of ash supplied to the user agencies covered under permitted uses/avenues, and comparison of this data with the information provided by the industries c. The compliance audit for ash disposal by the industry and the user agency shall be conducted by auditors, authorised by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and audit report shall be submitted to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and UPPCB on regular basis. UPPCB shall initiate action against non-compliant industries within fifteen days of receipt of audit report.
iv) UPPCB after scrutiny of auditor's reports may, if required re-verify the quantity of fly ash being generated by the generators and quantity being utilized by the users under agreement with the generators.
v) On the mechanism of filling of low lying areas with ash, shall be only be carried out only on the construction sites, Road Laying etc. (Govt, Semi Govt, Private) which have been approved by UPPCB, CPCB or other authorized departments.
vi) Non-compliant industries shall be imposed with an environmental compensation on per ton basis on unutilized ash during the end of financial year based on the annual reports submitted
vii)Major responsibilities of industries to dispose fly ash and bottom ash.-
The ash generated from coal shall be utilized only for the following eco-friendly purposes, namely:-
a) Fly ash based products viz. bricks, blocks, tiles, fibre cement sheets, pipes, boards, panels;
b) Cement manufacturing, ready mix concrete;
c) Construction of road and fly over embankment, Ash and Geo-polymer based construction material;
d) Construction of dam;
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 46
e) Filling up of low lying area on the construction sites, Road Laying etc (Govt, Semi Govt, Private) after the approval by UPPCB, CPCB or other authorized departments
f) Filling of mine voids;
g) Manufacturing of sintered or cold bonded ash aggregate;
h) Agriculture in a controlled manner based on soil testing;
i) Export of ash to other countries;
viii) The compliance audit for ash disposal by industries and the user agency shall be conducted by auditors, authorized by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and audit report shall be submitted to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and UPPCB on regular intervals. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and UPPCB shall initiate action against non-compliant industries within fifteen days of receipt of audit report.
(ix) The above mechanism shall be uploaded on the website of UPPCB seeking responses from the stakeholders, after which the mechanism shall be finalized and directions shall be issued to all coal based industries in the State of U.P/ Specific conditions shall be included in the CT0 issued by UPPCB. The above draft report is put up for perusal and necessary action please."
75. In that case this Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2024 directed UPPCB to finalize mechanism for proper disposal of fly ash by all air polluting industries within six months and submit report.
76. However admittedly, UPPCB has not complied with the directions given by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others so far.
77. UPPCB is directed to finalize the draft mechanism for proper utilization of fly ash generated by coal based industries and also ash generated by other industries and file compliance report within six months positively.
78. It may be observed here that Thermal power plants were granted Environmental Clearance by the MOEF&CC /State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) from time to time, subject to compliance of certain terms and conditions as environmental safeguards, which also O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 47 included the condition for backfilling of mines voids, use/disposal of fly ash in low lying areas, etc. An Expert Committee was constituted for developing a focussed strategy for best utilization of flyash to manufacture end products. The Committee made recommendations for enhanced utilization of flyash in various sectors viz. mines, roads, bricks manufacturing, cement manufacturing, etc. During an Inter-ministerial consultation held on 21.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, MOEF&CC, recommendations of the Expert Committee were accepted. The matter was examined in MOEF&CC and was referred to the EAC (Thermal Power Projects) in its meeting held on 28.5.2019 and 12.7.2019. The EAC mentioned that though the Flyash Notification, 1999 and subsequent amendments allow the unrestricted use of flyash in abandoned mines, low lying areas, soil conditioner in agriculture, there were no specific guidelines/methodology available for safe disposal of flyash so as to minimize the damage to the environment. MoEF & CC vide letter dated 01.03.2019 asked CPCB to come out with guidelines based on Odisha Pollution Control Board experience for reclamation of low lying areas and abandoned quarries with ash as recommended by the Expert Committee that was constituted by Niti Aayog vide O.M. No. 25 (11)/2014-Minerals dated 12.06.2018 for developing a focus strategy for best utilisation of fly ash to manufacture end products recommended. Accordingly, CPCB prepared in March 2019 Guidelines for disposal/utilisation of flyash for reclamation of Low Lying Areas and in stowing of Abandoned mines/Quarries (CPCB Guidelines, 2019). The scope of guidelines covers- 4.0 loading/unloading and transportation of flyash, 5.0 reclamation of low lying area using ash, 6.0 disposal of fly ash in voids of abundant mines, 7.0 precaution, 8.0 regulatory procedure for processing the application for consideration of grant of permission for reclamation of low lying areas/abandoned quarries. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 48
79. In the present case respondent no. 7-BEPL utilized 0.24915 LMT fly ash in reclamation of low lying area during the period from 01.03.2022 to 31.03.2023 and 0.485 LMT fly ash in reclamation of low lying area the period from 01.03.2023 to 31.03.2024.
80. The CPCB Guidelines 2019 contain the detailed procedure for utilization of ash for filling low lying areas and the relevant part is reproduced as under:-
"Filling of Low lying areas inside the plant premises and outside within 300 km. of power plant may be taken up using ash. Low lying area reclamation with ash should be taken up adopting standard practices as per 2015 technical specification mentioned in NTPC Policy. Following steps should be taken up prior to initiate low lying area developmental activities.
5.1 Preconditions:
5.1.1 Consent from land owner: Consent/ permission should be obtained in writing from the land owner before start of work. 5.1.2 Permission from Regulatory authority: Power plant/ land owner/ agency shall obtain statutory permission from regulatory authorities such as SPCB as per the requirement. 5.1.3 Prevention of pollution: Suitable methods should be adopted and necessary arrangement should be made to prevent pollution during excavation of pond ash at ash pond, filling area and during transportation of ash. 5.1.4 Soil Cover on the top of ash fill: As per the MOEF&CC gazette notification of ash utilization dated 14-09-1999 and as amendment on dated 27-08-2003 and 03-11-2009, the soil required for soil cover shall be excavated from land fill site itself and kept separately before taking for ash filling. If it is not possible to do so, only the minimum quantity of soil required for the purpose of cover shall be excavated from the soil borrow area. The voids so created due to removal of soil shall be filled up with ash with proper compaction and covered at top with soil cover. About 300-500 mm thick soil layer shall be placed over the ash fill area. This should be done as an integral part of low lying area development work.
5.1.6 Restrictions :
Reclamation of area by ash shall not be permitted in the following areas :
i. Flood plain area/Ecologically Sensitive Areas. ii. Agriculture land / area.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.49
iii. Reclamation of Forest land / area is permissible only if clearance from MoEF&CC as per Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is available. iv. Gochar Kisan Land.
5.2 Preparation of filling area 5.2.1 The entire area meant to receive the ash and earth filling shall be stripped by minimum 150 mm. The exact depth of stripping shall be decided by the Engineer-in-Charge depending upon nature of top soil and the vegetation present. All organic matter, vegetation, roots, stumps, bushes, rubbish, swamp materials, etc. shall be removed from the site. The stripping material and other unsuitable materials as referred above shall be kept away from the area to be filled up so that these do not get mixed up with filling material and disposed off to a place as decided by the Engineerin-Charge.
5.2.2 Levelling All existing undulations, holes, cavities and excavations made for plate load rests and other soil investigations, etc. shall be filled with pond ash having requisite moisture content. The ash thus filled shall be compacted with the help of vibratory rollers so as to achieve dry density of not less 95% as per I.S-2720 (Part-VII). This would result in a levelled surface upon which layer wise filling of compacted ash can be done."
81. The CPCB Guidelines 2019 also contain the regulatory procedure for processing the application for consideration of grant of permission for reclamation of low lying areas/abandoned quarries which reads as under:-
"8.1 The activity of reclamation of Low Lying Areas / Abandoned Quarries will be regulated under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The stipulations specified in this guideline is consistent with the provisions of Fly Ash Notification, 1999 and amended thereafter which should be a special condition mentioned in consent order issued under the Water (Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 and the Air Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Thereafter any deviations from the guidelines shall be treated as violation of both Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and action as deemed proper shall be taken under Consent Administration by the Board.
8.2 Necessary clearances shall be obtained from the concerned agencies such as DGMS, SPCB, IBM, MoC, etc ."
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 50
82. In para 5 (vii) of its reply respondent no.7-BEPL has mentioned that ash audit for FY 2022-2023 was carried out by Prof. Arun Prasad, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi who is stated to have submitted report to CPCB but copy of audit report has not been produced by CPCB.
83. In the present case CPCB and UPPCB have not looked into the aspect of compliance with the prescribed procedure and have not made any observations in this regard.
84. On the other hand, in its final report the CPCB made the following recommendations :-
"Recommendation:
1. As the unit does not have valid Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 form State Pollution Control Board for storage of ash (fly ash and bottom ash) in temporary sites, appropriate direction may be given to the unit.
2. The unit should lift the ash stored in temporary site to the end user on priority basis under the supervision of State Pollution Control Board.
3. The unit should utilize their captive ash dyke/pond for storage purpose and optimize the utilization of ash as per notification F.No. 22-13/2019-IA-III, dated August 28th 2019.
4. The unit should ensure that handling ash must be done in compliance of guideline prepare by CPCB in March, 2019."
85. Respondent no. 7-BEPL is directed (i) to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, (ii) to ensure management and disposal of fly ash in accordance with notifications issued by MoEF & CC and directions issued by UPPCB and (iii) not to store any fly ash in any temporary ash storage site without obtaining CTE/CTO from UPPCB and at places near to canal/waterbodies, public road and residential area. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 51
86. The UPPCB is directed (i) to take appropriate action for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no. 7-BEPL for violation of EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms and also for realization thereof and thereupon for utilization of the same for remediation of environmental damage caused by preparing and implementing an action plan in consultation with District Environment Committee, District Shahjahanpur; (ii) to finalize the draft mechanism for proper utilization of fly ash generated by coal based industries and also ash generated by other industries and file compliance report within six months positively; and (iii) to periodically inspect the 90 MW power plant of respondent no. 7-BEPL to verify compliance of the conditions regarding storage and transportation of fly ash in accordance with environmental norms/directions by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and to promptly take appropriate action in case of environmental violations. Question (ii) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO Conditions and environmental norms for prevention and control of water pollution?
87. The applicants have raised the grievances that rain water drain is blocked by throwing the fly ash as a result of which the water logging takes place and the crops are destroyed. The polluted water from the plant is discharged in river Khannaut affecting aquatic life and the health of cattle drinking water from the same.
88. In EC No. 1077/SEAC/366/209 dated 09.07.2010 following conditions were imposed regarding disposal and management of fly ash:-
"3. Proposed Water consumption is 6984 kid which shall be sourced from ground water.
X X X X
6. Water requirement of 6984 metre3 /day shall be met from ground water. Necessary prior permission for drawl of requisite quantity of ground water for the project shall be obtained from the competent authority.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.52
7. Close cycle cooling system with cooling towers shall be provided.
8. The treated effluents conforming to the prescribed standards shall be recalculated and re-used within the plant. There shall be no discharge outside the plant boundary except during monsoon for storm water. Arrangements shall be made that effluents and storm water do not get mixed.
9. A suitable sewage treatment facility shall be provided and the treated sewage shall be used for raising green belt/plantation.
10. Rain water harvesting should be adopted. Central Ground Water Authority/Board shall be consulted for finalization of appropriate rain water harvesting technology.
11. Regular monitoring of ground water in and around the project area shall be carried out; records maintained and six- monthly reports shall be submitted to the competent authorities.
89. In CTO No. 194853/UPPCB/Bareilly (UPPCBRO)/CTO/Both/ SHAHJAHANPUR/2023 dated 02.12.2023 following conditions was imposed regarding disposal and management of fly ash:-
"2. Conditions under Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act -1974 as amended :-
(i) The daily quantity of effluent discharge (KLD) Kind of Effluent Quantity(KLD) Treatment Discharge point Domestic 48 KLD facility STP Irrigation Industrial 980 KLD ETP Partially used in Process and rest used in ash quenching
(ii) Trade Effluent Treatment and Disposal :-The applicant shall operate Effluent Treatment Plant consisting of primary/secondary and tertiary treatment as is required with reference to influent quantity and quality. In case of stoppage of functioning of ETP, production has to be stopped immediately and this Board has to be intimated by fax/phone/email with a report in this regard to be dispatched immediately.
(iii) The treated effluent shall be recycled to the maximum extent and should be reused within the premises for gardening etc. Quality of the treated effluent shall meet to the following general and specific standards as prescribed under Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and applicable to the unit from time-to-time :-
Industrial Effluent Quality Standard O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.53
S.No. Parameter Standard
1 pH 5.5-9.0
2 BOD n 30 mg/I
3 COD 250 mg/I
4 TSS 100 /I
(iv) Sewage Treatment and Disposal :- The applicant shall provide comprehensive STP as is required with reference to influent quantity and quality.In case of stoppage of functioning of STP, production has to be stopped immediately and this Board has to be intimated by fax/phone/email with a report in this regard to be dispatched immediately.
(v) The treated sewage shall be reused in gardening as far as possible. The STP shall be maintained continuously so as to achieve the quality of the treated sewage to the following standards.
S No. Parameters Standards
1 pH 5.5 to 9.0
2 BOD (mg/L) 30
3 TSS (mg/L) 100
General Conditions
1. The applicant shall get analysed the samples of effluent/emission/hazardous wastes at least once in a three month from the laboratory recognized by the MoEF and shall report to the UPPCB.
2. The applicant shall however, not without the prior consent of the Board bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of effluent or gases emission or sewage waste from the unit.
3. Treated Industial waste water and domestic waste water shall be disposed jointly at one disposal point. The applicant shall provide discharge measurement equipment at final disposal point.
Specific conditions
2.Industrial effluent of 980 KLD shall be treated in 1000 KLD ETP and treated effluent shall be partially used in Process and rest shall be used in ash quenching.
3. Domestic sewage 48 KLD shall be treated in STP of 50 KLD capacity and treated sewage shall be used in irrigation in unit premises.
4. No treated or untreated effluent is allowed to discharge outside the premises of the unit.
6. Unit shall identify recipient drains/ rivulets and their u/s & d/s location in consultation with UPPCB and shall carry out monthly monitoring of identified recipient drains at u/s & d/s location through lab recognized under Environment (Protection) O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 54
Act, 1986 and shall submit the analysis report on monthly basis by 10th of every month to CPCB and UPPCB.
7. Process effluent / any waste water shall not be allowed to mix with storm water. Storm water drain shall be passed through guard pond."
Discharge of effluent in River Khannaut
90. In compliance of order dated 23.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal, inspection of Respondent no.7-BEPL was carried out by a team from Regional Directorate, CPCB, Lucknow along with officials from Regional Office, UPPCB Bareilly on 25.01.2024. In its report CPCB has observed as under:-
8. Water Consumption & Waste Water Generated (Avg. for 2022-23) Water Wastewater Specific Water S. No. Area of use Consumption Generated Consumption In KLD In KLD (KL Per KWH) 01 Process 67 168.93 --
02 Cooling 3283.23 2.75
9. Effluent Treatment facilities provided & Effluent reuse practice: treated water is used Disposal in Ash quenching, Coal handling system, Details: -
fire fighting for hot work and horticulture Plant Wastewater: ETP within the premises as well as green belt Capacity: 1000 KLD developed by unit.
Whether ETP facilities adequate to
10. "Yes"
achieve
standards Effluent sample collected to check performance -
Analysis results are attached in Table No.1.
X X X X X
5.The unit has presently three bore wells to meet its fresh water requirement. Electromagnetic water meter is installed in each bore wells. Log book of fresh water consumption is maintained. Copy attached as Annexure-IV.
X X X X
7. The unit has installed two rain water harvesting pit within premises for recharge of ground water. Copy of the design is attached as Annexure- VII.
8. The unit has established Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) of capacity 1000 KLD (attached as Annexure- VIII), which comprises of following:
a. Bar Screen,
b. Mechanical Oil and Grease Trap,
c. Equalization Tank,
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus
I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
55
d. Coagulation and chemical mixing tank
e. Tube settler Filter feed tank
f. Pressure Sand Filter
g. Activated Carbon Filter
h. Sludge Drying Beds
9. Electromagnetic flow meter was installed at ETP outlet.
10. The unit has installed Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) at the outlet of ETP and it was informed that OCEMS is connected with UPPCB and CPCB server. Login credentials of the OCEMS and ETP logbook attached as Annexure-IX.
Picture 1: OCEMS at ETP outlet 'Operational'
11. The unit informed that it has got monitored particulate matter in stack emission and wastewater characteristics by the third party once in a year. Copy of the third-party analysis report and calibration certificate of OCEMS installed for online monitoring of stack emission and ETP is attached as Annexure- X.
12. The samples were collected from Inlet and outlet of ETP to analyse the characteristics of wastewater at CPCB laboratory, Regional Directorate, Lucknow. The analysis results are tabulated below:
Table No. 1: Analysis result of ETP S. Parameter ETP inlet ETP Standard as per consent No. outlet issued by UPPCB pH 7.96 8.61 5.5-9.0 TSS (mg/L) 32.1 23.5 100 COD (mg/L) 24.7 6.65 250 BOD (mg/L) 10.5 <5 30 Oil & grease -- 5.27 10 (mg/L)
13. The above analysis result shows that the values of consented parameter were found well within the prescribed standard stipulated by UPPCB. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 56
14. A storm water drain flows in front of the unit gate containing wastewater from urban area. The drain ultimately meets to R. Khannot Picture 2: Storm water drain meets to River Khannot (Latitude: 28.245961, Longitude: 79.98828)
15. The sample was collected from storm water drain before meeting to River Khannot to analyse the characteristics of wastewater at CPCB laboratory, Regional Directorate, Lucknow. The analysis results are tabulated below:
Table No. 2: Analysis result of Storm Water Drain Parameter pH Colour TSS TDS SAR COD BOD (Hazen) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Drain 7.06 10 11.3 713 1.86 101 23.9 General 5.5- -- 100 -- -- 250 30 Standard for 9.0 discharge in Inland Surface Water as per The E(P)A, 1986, Schedule-VI
16. The above analysis result of different relevant parameter indicates that their values are in accordance with the prescribed General Standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water as per the E(P)A, 1986, Schedule-VI, no abnormalities were recorded.
17. The sample were collected from upstream and downstream of River Khannot from the industry in question to find out the impact of industrial discharge in to River in case of any. The samples were got analysis for different relevant parameter at CPCB Regional Directorate, Lucknow. The characteristics of river water is as under:
Table No. 3: Analysis result of River Khannot Parameter U/s of River D/s of River S. No. Khannot Khannot before mixing with after mixing with storm water drain storm water drain 1 pH 7.59 7.74 2 Temperature (0C) 11 11 O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
57 3 Colour (Hazen) 05 05 4 Conductivity (µS/cm) 377 372 5 TDS (mg/L) 257 251 6 Chloride as Cl- (mg/L) <3.0 <3.0 7 Sulphate as SO42- 6.31 7.24 8 (Phosphate mg/L) (PO43-) <0.06 <0.06 9 (Nitrate mg/L) (NO3-) (mg/L) 3.21 3.34 10 Ammonical Nitrogen <0.1 <0.1 (NH3-N) (mg/L) 11 DO (mg/L) 9.0 8.9 12 COD (mg/L) <5 <5 13 BOD (mg/L) <1 <1
18. As per the analysis report of the samples collected from river Khannot at upstream and downstream from industry, no significant variation with respect to water quality of river Khannot, observed as the water quality at both locations were found almost same.
Pitchure3: River Kannot Before mixing with drain Pitchure4: River Khannot after mixing with drain (Latitude:28.245878, Longitude: 80.988980) (Latitude:28.242404, Longitude: 79.989794)
19. The sample collected from Groundwater of industry premises to verify the water quality. The analysis results are tabulate below:
Table No. 4: Groundwater Quality of industrial Premises S. Parameter Groundwater Drinking water standard within the as No. premises of per BIS-IS 10500:20212 Industry 1 pH 7.78 (6.5-8.5 Acceptable limit) 2 Colour (Hazen) <5 05 3 TDS (mg/L) 153 500 4 Total Hardness (mg/L) 177 200 5 Calcium as Ca2+ (mg/L) 61 75 6 Magnesium as Mg 2+ (mg/L) 25 30 7 Sodium (Na+) (mg/L) 16.3 --
8 Potassium (K+) (mg/L) <1.0 --
9 Floride as F- (mg/L) <0.5 1.0 10 Alkalinity (mg/L) 120 200 11 Chloride as Cl- (mg/L) <3.0 250 O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.58 12 Sulphate as SO42- (mg/L) 7.75 200
13 Phosphate (PO43-) (mg/L) 0.062 --14 Nitrate (NO3-) (mg/L) 2.81 45
15 COD (mg/L) <5.0 --
20. The characteristics of the groundwater were found in accordance with the Drinking water standard as per BIS-IS 10500:20212 (Acceptable limit).
91. In compliance of order dated 15.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal UPPCB inspected the Power plant on 30.09.2024 and made the following observations in its report:-
6 Effluent Treatment facilities & Plant have ETP of Capacity: 1000 KLD Disposal .
Details: - Treated water is used in Ash quenching, Coal handling system, fire fighting for hot work and horticulture within the premises as well as green belt developed by unit
92. In its report UPPCB mentioned that the sample were collected from upstream and downstream of River Khannot from the industry in question to find out the impact of industrial discharge in to River in case of any. The samples were got analyzed for different relevant parameter at Regional Office, UPPCB laboratory, Bareilly. UPPCB has mentioned the characteristics of river water as Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A3 and submitted the analysis result of river Khannot as under:-
Table No. 3: Analysis result of River Khannot S. No. Parameter U/s of River D/s of River Khannot before Khannot meeting drain after meeting 1 pH 8.0 7.9 drain 2 Temperature (0c) 32 32 3 Colour(Hazen) 20 25 O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.59 4 Conductivity(µS/ 389 392
cm 5 TDS(mg/L) 254 260 6 Chlorides 18.0 16.0 Cr(mg/L) 7 DO(mg/L) 7.9 8.1 8 COD(mg/L) 24 24 9 BOD(mg/L) 2.7 2.8 • As per the analysis report of the samples collected from river Khannot at upstream and downstream from industry, no significant variation with respect to water quality of river Khannot, observed as the water quality at both locations were found almost same.
93. In its report CPCB has mentioned that the unit is using treated waste water for dust suppression in cold handling plant and for horticulture developed by the unit and the unit has installed the water hydrant system to control the fugitive emission in cold handling plant.
94. It may be observed here that CPCB and UPPCB got samples taken from (i) storm water drain before meeting to river Khannot, (ii) up stream and down stream of river Khannot from the unit in question and (iii) ground water from the unit premises and got the same analyzed as per the analysis reports (i) the samples taken from storm water drain were found to meet parameters/values in accordance with the prescribed General Standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water as per the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Schedule-VI no abnormalities were recorded; (ii) no significant variation with respect to water quality of river Khannot was observed as water quality at both the locations were found almost same and (iii) the characteristics of the ground water were found in accordance with the drinking water standard as per BIS-IS 10500:20212 (Acceptable limit).
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 60
95. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal directed CPCB to clarify as to how the prescribed general standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water in terms of E(P)A, 1986, Schedule VI has been applied to ascertain the abnormalities.
96. In compliance thereof CPCB has filed report dated 23.07.2024 that the drain was passing nearby the industry boundary wall. There is no other identified possible wastewater source in this drain (either industrial or domestic) near M/s Bajaj Energy Private Limited, Maksudapur, District:- Shahajahpur, U.P. The drain ultimately meets into inland surface water body (Khannot River). Sample was collected from the drain for verification of any untreated industrial wastewater discharge including domestic sewage in the drain and the analysed parameters were compared with the General Standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the stated purpose.
97. Respondent no. 7-BEPL has filed a map ANNEXURE-A-7 alongwith its reply dated 23.09.2024 showing the origin of subject drain, its route alignment and final meeting point at Khannaut river and made the following submissions with regard to the subject matter drain:-
"· The factual position is that the storm water drain under subject, originates from the Maqsoodapur village located at the upstream of the power plant.
· As per the Census data Of 2021, the Maqsoodapur village has a total of 249 households with a total population of 1416 persons.
· The referred drain originating from Maqsoodapur village carries wastewater /storm water from this village, passes adjacent to the power plant and discharge this village wastewater / storm water into the Khannaut River located about 1.2 kms away from the source of its origin. · In report, it is already mentioned that there is no other identified waste-water source in this drain (either industrial / domestic) near BEL plant. Hence there is no discharge of any wastewater from the industry.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.61
· No discharge from the industry was also cross verified during the site visit by collecting water samples from the drain and analysing against the parameters as per General Standard for discharge in Inland Surface Water notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
· As the water parameters of collected sample were well within the limits of discharge standards, it was concluded that there is no industrial discharge in the said stormwater drain."
98. However, it may be observed that in the present case CPCB and UPPCB have not conducted any study regarding utilization of ETP treated effluent in the industrial processes and ash quenching and also regarding utilization of STP treated waste water for horticulture/irrigation and respondent no. 4-BEPL has also not produced any report regarding the same to show that there is no discharge of industrial effluent or domestic sewage in the drain during non-monsoon periods and these aspects need to be looked into by UPPCB during periodical inspections of the industry.
99. UPPCB is directed to verify factual position regarding treatment of effluent and utilization of ETP treated effluent in the industrial processes and ash quenching and treatment of sewage and utilization of STP treated sewage for horticulture/irrigation.
100. In its report CPCB has mentioned that in adverse weather conditions possibility of damage of crops and water logging around the temporary storage site cannot be ruled out.
101. In case of damage of crops and water logging caused by adverse weather conditions, respondent no. 7-BEPL will be liable to pay appropriate compensation to persons suffering any loss due to the same.
102. It may be observed here that the applicants have not produced any cogent material before this Tribunal regarding suffering of loss by them or any other person due to damage of crops and water logging caused by adverse weather conditions.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 62
103. Respondent No.7-BEPL has submitted that on account of robust environment control and monitoring steps taken by plant, the environmental monitoring parameters are well within the permissible limits as set by the CPCB and no pollution is caused because of power plant operation. In order to ascertain whether there is any impact of power plant operation on nearby crops, aquatic life and animals/cattles, Respondent No.7-BEPL had also approached Agriculture Dept., Fishery Department and Veterinary Department of District Shahjahanpur and all the said departments have confirmed to Respondent No.7 that there is no report of any adverse impact of operations in the power plant on crops, aquatic life and animals / cattles in the nearby areas. Copies of letters issued by Agriculture Dept., Fishery Department and Veterinary Department of District Shahjahanpur have been annexed hereto with reply as Annexure R-7/12 (Colly). There is no discharge of any polluted water from the power plant. In fact, treated water from the power plant is totally reused for fire fighting, coal dust suppression, ash conditioning, dust quenching, and horticulture. The Fishery Department and veterinary Department of District Shahjahanpur have also confirmed that there is no report of any adverse impact of operation of power plant on the aquatic life and animals/cattles in the nearby areas. There is no blockage of rainwater drains by throwing the ash generated at the Power Plant. Infact, for maintaining the free flow of water seepage from the Sharda canal, hume pipes are installed by the answering Respondent. Pertinently, the District Agriculture Officer, Shahjahanpur has also confirmed that there is no crop damage on account of the operation of the Power Plant of the answering Respondent.
104. The authenticity and correctness of the reports submitted by the above mentioned government functionaries have not been challenged by O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 63 the applicants or any other person by filing objections to the same with requisite particulars and have also not been rebutted by the applicants by producing any cogent material to substantiate their claim.
105. In these facts and circumstances the present case respondent no. 7-BEPL is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants or any other persons for loss suffered due to its past environmental violations. Question (iii) Whether Respondent no.7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms for prevention and control of air pollution?
106. The applicants have raised the grievances that Respondent no. 7- BEPL is causing air pollution posing serious health hazards to school children and residents living nearby.
107. In CTO No. 194853/UPPCB/Bareilly (UPPCBRO)/CTO/Both/ SHAHJAHANPUR/2023 dated 02.12.2023 following conditions were imposed regarding prevention and control of air pollution:-
"3. Conditions under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act -1981 as amended :-
i) The applicant shall use following fuel and install a comprehensive control system consisting of control equipment as required with reference to generation of emissions and operate and maintain the same continuously so as to achieve the level of pollutants to the following standards.
Air Pollution Source Details S No. Air Type of fuel Stack no Control Height of Pollution Device Stack Source 1 Boiler 190 Coal 02 Particulate Electrostatic TPH Matter precipitator as APCS & Stack height of 110 meters from O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
64
2 Boiler 190 Coal 01 Particulate ground level
TPH Matter Electrostatic
precipitator as
APCS & Stack
height of 110
meters from
ground level
Emmission Quality Standards
S No. Stack no Parameters Standards
1 01 Particulate Matter 50 mg/Nm3
2 02 Particulate Matter 50 mg/Nm3
In case of stoppage of functioning of air pollution control equipment, production has to be stopped immediately and this Board has to be intimated by fax/phone/email with a report in this regard to be dispatched immediately
(ii) The unit will not use any type of restricted fuel.
iii) Noise from the D.G. Set and other source(s) should be controlled by providing an acoustic enclosure as is required for meeting the ambient noise standards for night and day time as prescribed for respective areas/zones (Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Silence) which are as follows Day time : from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m., Night time: from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. Standards for Noise Industrial Commercial Residential Silence level in db(A) Leq Area Area Area Zone Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time 75 70 65 55 55 45 50 40
5. Unit shall maintain and operate the Air pollution control system i.e. Electrostatic precipitator in the 02 boilers of 190 TPH each regularly and ensure that stack emissions shall always meet the norms specified in Rule 25 of Environment (Protection) Rules 1986."
108. In compliance of order dated 02.02.2024 final report was filed by email dated 12.04.2024 and in its final report the CPCB made the following observations:-
13 Stack and emission 110 meters, Air Pollution Control control system details: Device (Electro Static Precipitator) installed.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 65 14 Whether APCDs provided "Yes"
are adequate to achieve Emission sample of stack standards monitoring was collected to check performance and Particulate Matter concentration was found 41.58 mg/Nm3.
15 Pollution Control Measures adopted for fugitive emission control and status (Near coal handling area, coal crusher area, ash disposal area and other plant areas) ➢At Coal Handling Plant, Dust Suppression & Dust Extraction System installed ➢At Coal Crusher, Dust Suppression & Dust Extraction System available ➢At Ash Yard, Water Sprinkling Available. Arrangement -
Water Meter -07 No's
- Hydrant Valve- 30 No's
X X X X
21. Stack emission monitoring has been jointly (CPCB and UPPCB) carried out by team to verify the compliance with respect to Particulate Matter emission through stack. The particulate emission found 41.58 mg/Nm3, which is well within the prescribed standard that is 50 mg/Nm3.
22. During inspection, it was found that the unit has installed Scaffold ladder for the flue gas emission monitoring form the stack emission as per CPCB guideline.
Picture 5: Scaffold stair at stack for flue gas monitoring
23. Ambient air quality monitoring has also been jointly (CPCB and UPPCB) carried out by team at industry premises, near main gate of M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the air quality in referenced area. The results are PM10- 88.34 µg/m3, SO2- 14.22 µg/m3 and NO2- 26.15 µg/m3. The parameter monitored for ambient air quality were found within the prescribed norms that is PM10- 100 µg/m3, SO2- 80 µg/m3 and NO2- 80 µg/m3.
24. For the air pollution prevention and control the unit has installed dust suppression and dust extraction system at coal handling plant covering the transfer points. Details of dust O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 66 suppression system and dust extraction system are attached as Annexure- XI.
25. The unit has installed two ESP having four active fields, for the dust emission control from flue gas."
109. In compliance of order dated 15.04.2024 UPPCB inspected the Power plant on 30.09.2024 and made the following observations:-
8 Stack and emission control 110mtr, Air Pollution Control Device system details: (Electro Static Precipitator) installed 9 Whether APCS provided are "Yes"
adequate to achieve standards Unit's stack monitoring was conducted during inspection by the team of lab R0, UPPCB, Bareilly. Particulate Matter (PM10) concentration was found 44.06pg/m3. (Attached as Annexure-
A1) 10 Pollution Control Measures adopted for fugitive emission control and status (Near coal handling area, coal crusher area, ash disposal area and other plant areas) ➢ At Coal Handling Plant, Dust Suppression& Dust Extraction System installed ➢ At Coal Crusher, Dust Suppression & Dust Extraction System available ➢ At Ash Yard, Water Sprinkling Arrangement Available.
-Water Meter -07No's, -Hydrant Valve -- 30 No's X X X X • Stack emission monitoring has been conducted to verify the compliance with respect to Particulate Matter emission through stack. The particulate emission found 44.06 pg/m3, which is well within the prescribed standard that is 50 pg/m3. (Attached as Annexure-1) • Ambient air quality monitoring has also been conducted by team at industry premises, near main gate of M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the air quality in referenced area. The results are PM10-86.2 pg/m3, SOx- 12.07 pg/m3 & NOx-22.41 pg/m3. The parameters monitored for ambient air quality were found within the prescribed norms that is PM10-100pg/m3. (Attached as Annexure-A4) • For the air pollution prevention and control the unit has installed dust suppression and dust extraction system at coal handling plant covering the transfer points."
110. In its report CPCB and UPPCB have submitted that respondent no. 7-BEPL has installed 110 meter stack and air pollution control devices (electrostatic precipitator) air pollution control devices are adequate to O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 67 achieve the standards. CPCB has mentioned that dust suppression and dust extraction systems are available at coal handling plant and coal crusher and pollution control measures have been adopted for fugitive emission control near coal handling area, coal crusher area, ash disposal area and other plants areas and water sprinkling is available at ash yard.
111. In their report UPPCB and CPCB have also mentioned (i) that stack emission monitoring was carried out to verify the compliance with respect to Particulate Matter emission through stack which was found to be within the prescribed standard and (ii) that ambient air quality monitoring has also been conducted by team at industry premises, near main gate of M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the air quality and the parameters monitored for ambient air quality were found to be within the prescribed norms.
112. In its reply Respondent no.7-BEPL has submitted that Respondent No.7-BEPL has made robust arrangements for the control of pollutants as follows:
"a. The answering Respondent has installed State of the Art high efficiency Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) at the power plant for the control of Particulate Matter from the stack. A Photograph showing Electrostatic Precipitators at the answering Respondent's Power Plant is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/6.
b. The answering Respondent has installed 110 mt. high stack at the power plant for better dispersion of pollutants A Photograph showing 110 Mt. High Stack at the answering Respondent's Power Plant is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R- 7/7.
c. The answering Respondent has installed closed pipeline based ash conveying system for the transport of ash from ESP to the dry ash siloes.
A photograph showing closed pipeline based ash conveying system at the answering Respondent's Power Plant is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/8.
d. The Dry ash from the silo is transported to be used in road construction, cement industries, brick making etc. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.68
e. Furthermore, Ash pond is constructed within the plant premises to temporarily store the ash in the case of low / no demand.
f. Also, Effluent Treatment Plant of capacity 1000KLD and Sewage treatment Plant of capacity 50KLD are installed for the treatment of process and domestic effluent generated at the power plant.
A Copies of the Photographs showing Effluent Treatment Plant and Sewage Treatment Plant at the answering Respondent's Power Plant are annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/9. (Colly) g. Dense plantation is also carried out by the answering Respondent within and at the periphery of the plant premises to work as the greenbelt to curb emissions, if any from the power plant.
h. In addition to the above, regular environmental monitoring of stack, ambient air, ground /surface water, effluents quality etc is carried out by the independent NABL Accredited and MoEF&CC approved agency. As per the analysis reports, monitored parameters are well within the permissible limits. A Copies of the Test Reports issued by independent NABL accredited labs in respect of the answering Respondent's Power Plant, from time to time are annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R- 7/10.
i. The answering Respondent has also installed Continuous Emission Monitoring System in stack and Online Effluent Monitoring System at ETP outlet and the data is connected to the PCB server for continuous vigilance. A Copies of the Photographs showing Continuous Emission Monitoring System in stack and Online Effluent Monitoring System at ETP outlet at the answering Respondent's Power Plant is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-R-7/11."
111. However, CPCB and UPPCB have not looked into the adverse impact of storage of fly ash in unauthorized/illegal temporary storage sites without any boundary wall, green belt etc. and air pollution caused by the same and have not taken appropriate remedial measures regarding the same. CPCB and UPPCB did not look into the photographs and videos submitted by the applicant and have ignored serious environmental violations and have unjustifiably attempted to portray compliances. This Tribunal has given appropriate directions in this regard as part of discussion under question (i) which are not repeated/ reproduced here. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 69 Question (iv) Whether Respondent no. 7-BEPL has violated EC/CTE/CTO Conditions and environmental norms regarding development of green belt?
113. The applicants have raised the grievance regarding there being no greenery and that there is no provision for the greenery.
114. In EC No. 1077/SEAC/366/209 dated 09.07.2010 following conditions were imposed regarding development of green belt:-
"15. A green belt of adequate width and density shall be developed around the plant periphery covering at least 33% of the project area."
X X X X X
21. plantation at the point of maximum impact should be under taken.
22. Separate funds shall be allocated for implementation of environmental protection measures along with item wise breakup. These costs shall be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environmental protection measures shall not be diverted for any other purposes and year wise expenditure should be reported to the Govt. of India/CPCB/SPCB and to this authority."
115. In CTO No. 194853/UPPCB/Bareilly (UPPCBRO)/CTO/Both/ SHAHJAHANPUR/2023 dated 02.12.2023 (Pages no. 83 to 87 of the paper book) following conditions were imposed regarding disposal and management of fly ash:-
"7. In compliance to the G.O 1011/81-7-2021-09 (Writ)/2016 dated.13.10.2021 issued by Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Uttar Pradesh. You are directed to develop Miyawaki Forest as per the SOP available at URL:-
http://www.upecp.in/TrainingSession.aspx for ensuring timely compliance of this direction, you are hereby directed to submit a bank guarantee with minimum validity of one year of the amount equivalent to the sum of initial consent fees (Air and Water) or Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) whichever is more, within 30 days from the date of issuance of this certificate. In case of noncompliance of this direction, your consent will be revoked by the Board.
13- Unit shall develop Green Belt in minimum 33 percent area of Industrial Premises as per the provisions laid down in office order no. H16405/220/2018/02 dated 16-02-2018 of O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 70
U.P. Pollution Control Board. The copy of said office order is available on the website of U.P. Pollution Control Board www.uppcb.com."
116. In the Inspection Report dated 12.04.2024 CPCB mentioned that the Unit has not complied with EC/CTE condition regarding green belt development.
117. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal directed the respondent no. 7-BEPL to place on record the status of compliance of all the EC conditions relating to development of green belt.
118. In compliance thereof Report dated 23.09.2024 has been filed by respondent no. 7-BEPL. The relevant part of the report filed by respondent no. 7-BEPL is reproduced below:-
"viii. With regard to the Green Belt Development, it is submitted that the specific condition relating to the same in the Environmental Clearance Certificate reads as under: -
"A greenbelt of adequate width and density shall be developed around the plant periphery covering at least 33% of the project area."
ix. It is submitted that there is a full and total compliance of the Green Belt Developmental Condition.
x. It is submitted that the unit has already developed a thick greenbelt at the power plant covering an area of 13.85 Acres (Total plant land of 30.855 Acres) equals to approx. 45% of total plant land as greenery. This greenbelt is corroborating with the minimum 33% greenbelt requirement of MoEF&CC. xi. It is submitted that, the unit has also developed Miyawaki Forest within the plant premises, which ensures plant growth 10 times faster and with 30 times higher density. Geotagged photographs of greenery in plant area are being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-6."
119. Respondent no. 7-BEPL has enclosed plantation report with its reply and the relevant part of the plantation report reads as under:-
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.71
Survival Plantation
plan upyo from Oct.
SI.No. March. 2023
2024 to
Area Name Name of plant March.2024 Total
273 295
1 Main Plant Side Ashok
22
(1.66 Acer) Kaner 76 22 98
Ficus 122
109 13
Mango 10
5 5
Chandani 7 29
22
Kanji 55 7 62
Akeshia 57 6 63
Hibiscus 11 66
55
Rose 109 13 122
Jungle Jaleby 33 6 39
Alstonia 22 3 25
Chamba 109 11 120
Rat Rani 2 5 7
Palm 33 7 40
Neem 4 8 12
Tulsi 5 11 16
Marry Gold 765 20 785
Main Plant 160
along with
2 boundary Ashok 137 23
(1.98 Acer) Kaner 16 5 21
Ficus 55 6 61
Semal 5 6 11
3 CHP Ashok 24 9 33
(1.61 Acer) Kaner 61 11 72
Ficus 0 13 13
Mango 2 1 3
Akeshia 229 20 249
Hibiscus 44 11 55
Champa 33 5 38
Popular 5 0 5
Peepal 1 0 1
Guava 5 5 10
Casurina 191 12 203
Sheesam 90 20 110
Semal 3 1 4
Coal yard out Kanji
55 3 58
4 side
(0.6 Acer) Siveroak 66 22 88
Akeshia 115 22 137
Amaltash 49 13 62
Ficus 23 5 28
Casurina 22 7 29
Guava 7 7 14
Mango 5 6 11
5 Switch yard Alstonia 33 11 44
(0.9 Acer) Ficus 44 13 57
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus
I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
72
Kaminy 22 6 28
Tuisl 22 3 25
Guava 11 11 22
Guava 16 5 21
6 Ash Yard Area
(1.5 Acer) Sheesam 33 7 40
Jamun 123 8 131
6 Plant outside Guwava
neibhour
villages
(Natura,
1831 11 1842
Makqsoodapu
r, Aozdhapur
5.6 Acer Jamun 1847 20 1867
Arjun 1805 23 1828
Sheesam 1825 5 1830
Teak 1455 6 1461
Lemon Tree 840 6 846
Eucalyptus 1333 9 1342
Grand Total 14218 554 14772
120. It is surprising that respondent no. 7-BEPL has included roses, marigold, lemon and tulsi in the list of the plants for inflating the number of the trees reported to have been planted.
121. Vide order dated 15.04.2024 this Tribunal directed Respondent No.2 UPPCB to file report. In compliance of order dated 15.04.2024, the officials of UPPCB, Bareilly inspected the premises of respondent no. 7-
BEPL on 30.09.2024 and submitted Inspection Report Annexure A enclosed with the report dated 18.10.2024 filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Bareilly. In the inspection report it has been mentioned that "it was found that green belt development is not sufficient, boundary wall/wind braking wall was not there at the site. (Notice issued for development of green belt and construction of boundary wall via vide letter dated 30.09.2024)".
122. UPPCB has not filed any further report mentioning as to what further action was taken on notice dated 30.09.2024. O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 73
123. Vide letter no. H16405/220/2018/02 dated 16.02.2018 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board issued protocols regarding development of green belt for air pollution control and carbon offsetting. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was developed by Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board with a view to planting trees on Miyawaki Method. Vide Uttar Pradesh Government file no. 81-7005 (099)/216/2020-07, letter no. 1011/81-7-2021-09 (Writ)/2016 dated 13.10.2021 it was directed that plantation based on Miyawaki Method should be done compulsorily on the available sites in the premises of the units and the concerned Divisional Forest Officer were required to closely monitor the plantation based on Miyawaki method in the industries and to also provide technical guidance to the industries as per requirement. It was also directed therein that in case the industries do not comply with the conditions of consent and the above instructions, on the recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer, action should be taken to revoke the consent of the industry as per the procedure prescribed by the UPPCB through the concerned regional officer so that it can be ensured that trees are planted for air pollution control and carbon offsetting as per the prescribed conditions. The Divisional Commissioner and District Magistrate were also directed to regularly review compliance of the above said instructions.
124. No report has been submitted by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, the Divisional Commissioner and the District Magistrate.
125. In these facts and circumstances, we consider it necessary to verify the factual position regarding green belt raised by respondent no. 7-BEPL.
O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 74
126. Accordingly, we direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Shahjahanpur to verify the factual position and submit report as to whether respondent No. 7 -BEPL has developed green belt over 33 % of project area as mandated by EC and CTE/CTO consent conditions and to submit report within six months specifying the deficiencies of green belt/plantation in terms of area, location, number and nature of species of trees and suggesting measures required to be taken by respondent no. 7-BEPL for remedying deficiencies of green belt/plantation and the budget amount required for the same.
127. Respondent no. 7-BEPL is directed to ensure that such deficiencies of green belt/plantation so mentioned in the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Shahjahanpur are remedied so that requisite green belt/plantation of requisite width around the periphery of both the plants and over 33 % of the project area is raised and to file compliance report in this regard within next four months.
Directions by the Tribunal
128. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and relevant statutory provisions and environmental norms, the present original application is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Respondent no. 7-BEPL is directed (i) to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, (ii) to ensure management and disposal of fly ash in accordance with notifications issued by MoEF & CC and directions issued by UPPCB and (iii) not to store any fly ash in any temporary ash storage site without obtaining CTE/CTO from UPPCB and at O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.75
places near to canal/waterbodies, public road and residential area.
(ii) The UPPCB is directed (i) to take appropriate action for imposition of environmental compensation on respondent no. 7-BEPL for violation of EC/CTE/CTO conditions and environmental norms and also for realization thereof and thereupon for utilization of the same for remediation of environmental damage caused by preparing and implementing an action plan in consultation with District Environment Committee, District Shahjahanpur; (ii) to finalize the draft mechanism for proper utilization of fly ash generated by coal based industries and also ash generated by other industries and file compliance report within six months positively; and
(iii) periodically inspect the 90 MW power plant of respondent no. 7-BEPL to verify compliance of the conditions regarding storage and transportation of fly ash in accordance with environmental norms/directions by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal and to promptly take appropriate action in case of environmental violations and (iv) to verify factual position regarding treatment of effluent and utilization of ETP treated effluent in the industrial processes and ash quenching and treatment of sewage and utilization of STP treated sewage for horticulture/irrigation.
(iii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Shahjahanpur is directed to verify the factual position and submit report as to whether respondent No. 7-BEPL has developed green belt over 33 % of project area as mandated by EC and CTE/CTO consent conditions and to submit report within six months specifying O.A. No. 602/2023 Sardar Satnam Singh & Ors. Versus I.A. No. 58/2024 Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 76
the deficiencies of green belt/plantation in terms of area, location, number and nature of species of trees and suggesting measures required to be taken by respondent no. 7-BEPL for remedying deficiencies of green belt/plantation and the budget amount required for the same.
(iv) Respondent no. 7-BEPL is directed to ensure that such deficiencies of green belt/plantation so mentioned in the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Shahjahanpur are remedied so that requisite green belt/plantation of requisite width around the periphery of the plant and over 33 % of the project area is raised and to file compliance report in this regard within next four months.
129. Reports as directed above may be filed within one month next to the expiry of the specified period before the Ld. Registrar General of this Tribunal who may, if necessary, put up the matter before the Bench for further directions.
130. A copy of this order may be sent by email to the applicants for information and the Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, UPPCB, Divisional Forest Officer, Shahjahanpur and respondent no. 7- BEPL for requisite compliance.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM November 06th 2025 ag