National Green Tribunal
Nilkanth Kraft Paper Mill vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board on 25 March, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 03 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 08/2021 (WZ)
M/s. Nilkanth Kraft Paper Mill Applicant
Versus
Gujarat Pollution Control Board & Anr. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 25.03.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Saurabh Patel, Advocate
ORDER
1.1
1. This application seeks quashing of order of the State PCB dated 21.10.2020 under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
2. At the outset, we note that the appeal filed by the applicant is still pending before the Appellate Authority. It is stated that the said authority is not functional and therefore the application may be entertained. The appellant also approached the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 15191 of 2020, M/s Nilkanth Kraft Paper Mill v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board which was disposed of on 03.12.2020 with following operative order:-
"Learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Patel seeks permission to withdraw the petition by submitting that against the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 passed by respondent No.1, there is remedy of appeal available before respondent No.2 under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It was further submitted and stated that one appeal against earlier appeal has already been preferred on 13.10.2020 in the appellant authority.1
1.1 It was further stated that the petitioner would opt to prefer such appeal to agitate his case.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner urged that the appeal which may be preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order as well as appeal already preferred against the earlier order be directed to be expedited by appellate authority.
3. The permission as prayed for withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act is granted.
4. It is observed that the respondent No.2 shall look into the appeal strictly in accordance with law and on merits so as to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.
5. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn."
3. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.02.2019 in (2019) 19 SCC 479, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited & Ors. laying down that this Tribunal cannot entertain an application or appeal when first statutory appeal against order of the State PCB under Section 31A of the Air Act, 1981 is pending with the Appellate Authority, we find it difficult to entertain the present application. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are:
"32. From the above authorities, it is clear that an appeal is a creature of statute and an Appellate Tribunal has to act strictly within the domain prescribed by statute. It is obvious that an appeal would lie from an order or decision of the appellate authority under Section 28 of the Water Act to the NGT only under Section 33-B(a) of the Water Act read with Section 16(a) of the NGT Act. Similarly, an appeal would lie from an order or decision of the appellate authority under Section 31 of the Air Act to the NGT only under Section 31-B of the Air Act read with Section 16(f) of the NGT Act. Obviously, since no order or decision had been made by the appellate authority under either the Water Act or the Air Act, any direct appeal against an original order to the NGT would be incompetent. NGT's jurisdiction being strictly circumscribed by Section 33-B of the Water Act, read with Section 31-B of the Air Act, read with Sections 16(a) and (f) of the NGT Act, would make it clear that it is only orders or decisions of the appellate authority that are 2 appealable, and not original orders. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that an appeal was pending before the appellate authority when the NGT set aside the original order dated 9-4-2018. This being the case, the NGT's order being clearly outside its statutory powers conferred by the Water Act, the Air Act, and the NGT Act, would be an order passed without jurisdiction."
4. On merits, the impugned order states that the applicant unit was found violating environmental norms in operation of the Paper Mill in question. Odour was generated which was not being controlled. Plastic waste was being stored on RCC floor. Fogger system was not installed on the boundary wall. Carbon Tower and Duct line with the Pulper Area and Heating Zone were not installed. There was no permission for drawal of the ground water. Boiler ash was found in open. Pollution caused was affecting the inhabitants. The applicant has stated that while passing the impugned order, the Gujarat State PCB has not considered relevant material. Samples were taken without following statutory procedure. The report of the SVNIT dated 02.11.2020 has not been considered. The Ahmedabad Textiles Industries Research Association (ATIRA) has assessed the efficacy and adequacy of EMS and the pollution load generated with the manufacturing activities, and in their detailed report (Adequacy Certificate) they have come to a conclusion that existing environment management system are adequate in its capacity and its efficacy.
5. Since the application is not maintainable, it is not necessary to go into the merits. Leaving the available remedies of the applicant as per law open, the application is disposed of as not maintainable.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP 3 S.K. Singh, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM March 25, 2021 Original Application No. 08/2021 (WZ) SN 4