National Green Tribunal
Bhausaheb Lahanu Gambhire vs Uthech Sugar Limited on 16 January, 2020
Item No. 07
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 09/2018 (WZ)
(M.A. No. 47/2018)
Bhusaheb Gambhire Applicant
Versus
Utech Sugar Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 16.01.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SIDDHANTA DAS, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Sachin S. Gore holding for Mr. R. B.
Mahabal, Advocate
For Respondent (s): Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, Ms. Aditee
Dongrawat, Mr. Siddharth A. Mehta and Ms.
Samridhi S Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.
1.
Ms. Swayamprabha holding for Mrs. Supriya
Dangare, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for CPCB.
ORDER
1. This Original Application was filed by the Applicant, who is a villager of Kavathe, Malkapur, expressing deep anguish in the manner in which the water in Pazar Bandharas was being polluted due to discharge of effluents by Respondent No.1 Sugar Factory rendering it unfit for human consumption. It is alleged that the water is drawn from the water body for the purpose of drinking as well as for irrigation FOR cultivation by the villagers. Thus contamination of the water body had been a source of health-hazard and suffering for the people.
1
2. On 04.07.2019 it was submitted by Mr. R.B. Mahabal, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the findings arrived at in the second inspection referred to above would show that the industry has undertaken mitigation measures to offset the inadequacies found in the earlier inspection 3 which would lead one to reasonably infer that the pollution observed earlier was caused by the discharge of effluents by the Respondent No. 1, Sugar factory.
3. Accepting the report, the CPCB and the MPCB were then directed to assess the environmental damage caused to the area including the health of the people. Cost of restitution and restoration of the environment was also to be assessed in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the CPCB. Pursuant to the above directions, report has been submitted by the joint Committee of the CPCB and the MPCB assessing the damage at ₹37,20,000/- based on the guidelines prepared by the CPCB.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, the project proponent, however, has expressed his reservation on the period for which the damage has been assessed. An affidavit has been filed to place the objections on record.
5. We are, however, not inclined to consider those as the matter was decided by the Committee based on a detailed consideration of various facts and circumstances.
6. However, we grant liberty to the project proponent to approach the Committee with the objections for its consideration and the Committee 2 may take decision thereon. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from hence.
7. With the above directions, the O.A. stands disposed off along with connected M.A.
8. No order as to costs.
S. P. Wangdi, JM Siddhanta Das, EM 16th January, 2020 O.A. 09/2018 (WZ) avt 3