National Green Tribunal
Basudev Gayen vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 5 January, 2022
Item No. 07 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 01/2021/EZ
M/s Bright Steel Works Appellant(s)
Versus
West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 05.01.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourav Guha, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, Advocate for R-1 to 4,
Mr. Rajib Ray, Advocate for R-5,
Mr. Saikota Deyashi, Advocate a/w
Mr. Manabendra Debnath, Advocate for R-6,
ORDER
1. Mr. Sourav Guha, learned Counsel is present for the Appellant.
2. An affidavit in reply dated 09.08.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant; the same is taken on record.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and after hearing we find that it is not necessary to implead the General Manager, District Industries Centre in the present Original Application.
4. However, we find that the closure order of the Appellant's unit has been issued only on the ground that the Almirah, Grill Manufacturing (dry mechanical process with painting) operations cannot be carried out within the municipal areas of West Bengal as per the Siting Policy of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board dated 14.06.2016.
5. If that is the statutory position with regard to the Siting Policy of the Board dated 14.06.2016, the question is how was the Consent 1 to Establish and Consent to Operate granted to the Appellant by the General Manager, District Industries Centre vide his order dated 27.01.2020 who was also Ex-officio Environment Officer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board on the date. This, prima-facie, shows that the authority, namely, Ex-officio Environment Officer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board, who had issued Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate both dated 27.01.2020, was acting in complete ignorance of the Board's own Siting Policy of 14.06.2016. Through this action, the General Manager, District Industries Centre and Ex-officio Environment Officer of the Board, has, prima-facie, illegally caused financial gain to the Appellant's firm.
6. Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, reads as under:-
"3. Offence of money-laundering- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it is untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering."
7. Section 4 of the Act which prescribes the punishment for money-
laundering, reads as under:-
"4. Punishment for money-laundering- Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may extend to seven years", the words "which may extend to ten years" had been substituted."2
8. A conjoint reading of Sections 3, 4 and Sections 43 and 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the Schedule thereto would show that if air, water, ground and environment pollution is caused in an area, not only the person causing environmental pollution but any person aiding and abetting such act would also be liable for causing illegal financial gain to such violator.
9. Along with the affidavit of the Board dated 28.07.2017, an order dated 14.06.2016 has been filed as Annexure R-1 wherein industries have been notified as Red, Orange, Green, White and Exempted. The list of industries falling under 'Orange Category' has been filed and Sl. No. 63 thereof mentions steel and steel products using various furnace like blast furnaces/open hearth furnace/induction furnace/arc furnace/submerged arc furnace/basic oxygen furnace (not attracting EIA (Notification) 2006 as amended). Neither the notification dated 14.06.2016 nor the category appended thereto discloses as to whether the industry mentioned under Sl. No. 63 is permitted within the municipal area of West Bengal. The note appended below the list, however, mentions that Sl. No. 16 (Almirah, grill manufacturing) is not permitted in municipal areas of West Bengal.
10. The impugned closure order, on the other hand, mentions that during inspection of the unit it was found that the unit was manufacturing steel almirah using electricity generated from solar panels in violation of the Siting Policy of the State Board. We fail to understand that if steel and steel products under Sl. No. 63 are permitted activity within a municipal area in West Bengal in the 'Orange Category', how was the Appellant unit manufacturing steel 3 almirah using electricity generated from solar panels acting in violation of the notification dated 14.06.2016. Prima-facie, the prohibition regarding industrial operation within the municipal area of West Bengal would be confined to the industry, namely, almirah, gril manufacturing under Sl. No. 16 and not under Sl. No. 63 of the notification dated 14.06.2016.
11. We, therefore, direct the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to file a specific affidavit within ten days clarifying as to why the closure order was issued when the closure order itself mentions that during the inspection the unit of the Appellant was found to be manufacturing steel almirah whereas steel and steel products using blast furnace/open hearth furnace/induction furnace/arc furnace/submerged arc furnace/basic oxygen furnace which fall within the 'Orange Category'. The West Bengal Pollution Control Board must also clarify violation of the Siting Criteria, if any, and if so, why Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate was issued in the first place and then subsequently withdrawn by issuing the closure order.
12. The affidavit be filed within ten days and the e-copy/soft copy of the same shall be served upon the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the other Respondents before filing it in the Tribunal.
13. List on 17.02.2022.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ...................................
Saibal Dasgupta, EM January 05, 2022 Appeal No. 01/2021/EZ AK 4