National Green Tribunal
Kushabapu Rangnath Pawar vs Padmashree Dr. Viththalarao Vikhe on 30 January, 2024
Item No.5 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.143/2017(WZ)
Kushabapu Pawar & Anr.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Padmashree Dr. Viththalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana & Anr.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 30.01.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Kaushik Kulkarni, Advocate along-with
Ms. Shreya N. Deshpande, Advocate
Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-1/PP
Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Advocate for R-2/MPCB
Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for CPCB
ORDER
1. From the side of applicant No.2- Shri Dadasaheb Kushabapu Pawar, an affidavit dated 24.01.2024 has been filed, which is in Marathi language, stating therein that the counsel for respondent No.1- Mr. R.B. Mahabal should not be allowed to argue in this case because earlier applicant No.2 had approached him, in order to engage him as a counsel in this case and had revealed to him all the facts of this case. Therefore, there is likelihood of conflict of interest and that he does not have hope for getting justice from this Tribunal in case the said learned counsel is allowed to argue in this matter on behalf of respondent No.1. He has also annexed with the said affidavit several photographs of the screenshots of WhatsApp Chat, in order to establish that he had contacted with the said learned counsel in this case. But the learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal has clearly denied to Page 1 of 5 have ever met with the applicant No.2 nor has he made contact with him. He has also emphasized that applicant No.2 has never shared any information with him pertaining to this case. When we enquired from the applicant No.2 as to whether any Vakalatnama was filed by the said learned counsel from his side in this case, he responded in the negative.
2. After having heard the applicant No.2 and perused the documentary evidence on record, which the applicant No.2 has submitted before us in support of his argument, we are not inclined to accept his request because unless there was Vakalatnama filed by learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal on behalf of the applicant No.2 in this case and now he would be trying to argue from the side of respondent No.1/PP, we would have restrained him from arguing. But in this case, looking to the evidence on record, we cannot direct the learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal not to continue as a counsel for respondent No.1.
3. Thereafter, we started hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. Initially, the learned counsel Mr. Kaushik Kulkarni representing applicants addressed us, stating that the affidavit dated 08.07.2023, which he has filed, annexed at page nos.326 to 861 of the paper book, should be treated to be his full argument. Out of that affidavit, he has drawn our attention to para no.75 of the said affidavit, where-in it is recorded that in pursuance to the complaints made by him, the officers conducted a site visit on 13.12.2021 i.e. after five days of complaint and observed the complete scenario. The photographs of the said visit has also been annexed as Annexure- 'X' (colly). He still argued that the photographs, which he has annexed, show the discharge of spent wash from the tankers belonging to the respondent No.1 in the field of the applicants. But after having seen those photographs, we did not find any date or geo-tagging to establish as to where these photographs were taken and on which date. Page 2 of 5
4. Thereafter, the learned counsel for applicants has drawn our attention to page nos.643 to 669 of the paper book, which are the same photographs, regarding which we have already indicated above that they do not have any date or the place where they have been taken.
5. Thereafter, the learned counsel for applicants has drawn our attention to page no.459 of the paper book, which is an inspection report dated 20.02.2014 of the premises of respondent No.1 made by the Officers of the MPCB and it is indicated therein at serial no.3: Under Special Remarks, that the industry did not have ETP, though for the purpose of which ETP was supposed to be there, is written, which is not understandable to us nor could it be explained by the learned counsel for applicants and he stated that this could be asked from the learned counsel for State PCB. Thereafter, he closed his argument.
6. Thereafter, we have heard the argument of learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal representing respondent No.1- Padmashree Dr. Viththalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, who has submitted before us that the industry of respondent No.1 was established in the year 1975 i.e. the first distillery unit of 32 KLPD and the 2nd distillery unit was established in the year 2002 of 60 KLPD and at that point of time, no EC was required. The first and only latest EC is dated 28.11.2022, which has been obtained by it, which is annexed at page no.938 of the paper book.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also drawn our attention to the Joint Committee Report, annexed at page nos.193 to 319 of the paper book and has vehemently argued that the Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction by suggesting the amount of compensation, which was an adjudicatory function and not that of the Joint Committee, it can only give fact finding report. It is also highlighted by him that the accident, Page 3 of 5 which is said to have occurred in the year 2016, has not been mentioned by the applicants themselves in their Original Application, despite the said application having been moved in the year 2017 and now in that regard, the Joint Committee Report contains facts. But he did admit that the same was done by the Committee pursuant to the expansion of the issue by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also drawn our attention to page nos.949, 953 & 957 of the paper book, which are affidavits submitted by the owners of Plot Nos.512/2, 512/3 & 512/1 respectively, who have stated clearly that no damage had happened to their crops, although the same is being controverted by the learned counsel for applicants, saying that the said affidavits do not bear any date.
9. Apart from that, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken us through his objections filed against the Joint Committee Report dated 28.10.2023, in which all the objections have been incorporated at length and he has addressed on all the issues, to us.
10. Thereafter, we gave an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel Mr. Vilas Jadhav representing respondent No.2/MPCB, who has drawn our attention to their five affidavits, which have been submitted from their side, which are annexed at page nos.74 to 84, 85 to 92, 93 to 132, 183 to 189 and 962 to 1061 of the paper book. The main emphasis laid by him is that no violation was found to have been caused from the side of respondent No.1/Project Proponent. At page no.962 of the paper book, we have pointed out to the learned counsel for respondent No.2/MPCB that the details, which have been given in that affidavit related to the Consent to Operate, there appear to be various gaps. When we tried to know from him the reason as to why these gaps are there, he stated that the Page 4 of 5 respondent No.1 did have Consent to Operate throughout, but due to lack of record available with the respondent No.2, these details could not be produced before us, hence, these gaps have been left.
11. Arguments concluded. We reserve this matter for Judgment.
12. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM January 30, 2024 Original Application No.143/2017(WZ) P.Kr Page 5 of 5