Madhusudan H Roongta vs The Collector Chandrapur And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5867 Bom

   wp5435.04                                                                      1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                WRIT  PETITION/ PIL NO.  5435  OF  2004


  Madhusudan H. Roongta,
  President, Industries Association,
  Chandrapur.                                    ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. The Collector, Chandrapur.

  2. The Chief Engineer (Gen. & O. & M.)
     Super Thermal Power Station 
     (CSTPS), Urjanagar, Chandrapur.

  3. Union of India
     through Secretary, Ministry of
     Environment and Forest,
     New Delhi.

  4. Chief Engineer,
     Corporate Environmental Health
     and Safety Unit, Maharashtra State
     Electricity Board, Prakashgad, 3rd
     Floor, Bandra (East), Mumbai.

  5. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
     Prakash Garh, Bandra-East, Mumbai
     400 051.

  6. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra
     Pollution Control Board, Kalpana 
     Point, 4th Floor, Sion Matunga Scheme
     Road No. 8, Sion (Circle), Sion (East),
     Mumbai 400 002.

  7. The State of Maharashtra
     through the Principal Secretary,
     Ministry of Energy and Environment,




::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2017 01:48:57 :::
    wp5435.04                                                                       2



     Mantralaya, Mumbai.
  8. Maharashtra Pollution Control
     Board, Sub-Regional Office,
     Chandrapur, through its 
     Sub-Regional Officer, New 
     Administrative Building,
     Block Nos. 13 & 14, Ground 
     Floor, In front of Hotel Palace,
     Mul Road, Chandrapur 442 401.

  9. Wester Coalfields Limited,
     through its Chairman-cum-
     Managing Director, having its
     registered office at Coal Estate,
     Civil Lines, Nagpur.
                                                  ...   RESPONDENT


  Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent No. 1 & 7.
  Shri R.E. Moharir, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 5.
  Shri A.M. Aurangabadkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
                     .....

                                CORAM :      B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                             ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

AUGUST 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Heard Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned AGP for respondent

Nos. 1 & 7, Shri Moharir, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2

& 5 and Shri Aurangabadkar, learned counsel for respondent

No. 3.

2. The grievance has been entertained in public

interest. The petitioner points out air and water pollution due

to activity of production of electricity undertaken at Thermal

Power Station at Chandrapur by respondent Nos. 2 & 5.

3. After arguments, we find that fly ash generated in

the process and its storage/ handling may be adding to the

problem. The petitioner contends that even recent report of

Respondent No. 8 - Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

reveals utilization of only 45% of fly ash. He further points out

that it is stored in open and, therefore, is blown away by air

and flows in the streams and ponds, thereby contaminating

river.

4. Shri Moharir, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2

& 5 submits that to prevent ash from being blown away, it is

kept wet and some slurry i.e. solution of ash and water, may be

generated in the process. He submits that adequate precautions

are being taken to see that it does not contaminate ground

water or then it does not affect ambient air quality.

5. The respective counsel had at one stage also agreed

that the matter may be required to be sent to the National

Green Tribunal.

6. The learned AGP and Shri Aurangabadkar, learned

counsel, however, submit that cognizance taken is about 13

years back and in recent years, several technologies have been

advanced. According to them, report of Maharashtra Pollution

Control Board in recent visit and technologies adopted by

Respondent Nos. 2 & 5, need to be looked into by this Court.

7. We have perused the document dated 07.06.2017

handed over by Shri Moharir, learned counsel (Visit Report

dated 07.06.2017 is taken on record and marked as Exh. "X").

It is visit report by Respondent No. 8 - Maharashtra Pollution

Control Board. Shri Thakur, learned counsel submits that he

has received the document today only and needs some time to

understand its exact implications.

8. Taking overall view of the matter, we find that even

Report dated 07.06.2017 of Respondent No. 8 - Board may not

show very satisfactory position. The petitioner may be required

to file additional affidavit to bring on record the implications

and import thereof.

8. We, therefore, find it proper to direct the Registry

of this Court to register a new Public Interest Litigation

mentioning Shri Madhusudan H. Roongta, as petitioner with

Shri H.V. Thakur, as his counsel. On the basis of this report

and other material, we grant leave to Shri Roongta to file fresh

memo, bringing on record up to date position. The copies

thereof shall be served on the respective counsel and

respondents. The respondents can file their reply to it within

four weeks after the memo is served upon them.

9. The objection about jurisdiction and need to send

the matter to National Green Tribunal is kept open and can be

looked into at that stage. We grant the petitioner time of four

weeks to file appropriate memo in this respect.

10. Accordingly, with these observations and directions,

we dispose of the present Writ Petition/ PIL. However, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as

to costs.

           JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
                                           ******

  *GS.