Chattisgarh High Court
R S P L Limited vs C.G. Environment Conservation ... on 10 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 298 of 2020
R S P L Limited Through Mr. Jaswinder Singh, S/o Mr. Babu Singh, Aged
About 42 Years, Plant Manager Having It's Unit At Ph No.- 100/28,
Khasra No. Ph 31, 33, 34 And 37 Village Achholi District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. Having It's Registered Office At 199-121 (Part) Block P And
T Fazal Ganj, Kalpi Road Kanpur- 208012 (Up)
---- Appellant
Versus
C.G. Environment Conservation Board (Respondent) Board
(Respondent) Through Its Regional Officer Commercial Complex, C.G.
Housing Board Colony Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
10.03.2022
Heard Mr. Daleep Dhayani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 27.02.2020, passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 761 of 2020, refusing to
entertain the writ petition on the ground that an appeal lies before the
National Green Tribunal.
3. The writ petition was instituted challenging an order dated
06.02.2020, issued by the Regional Officer, Chhattisgarh Environment
Conservation Board, which was passed in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 (for short, 'the Air Act, 1981') and in terms of the order dated
10.07.2019 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,
directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1.14 crore as
environmental compensation with the Chhattisgarh Environment
Conservation Board by way of Demand Draft.
4. Order dated 10.07.2019, which is quoted in the order dated
06.02.2020, reads as follows:
"i. Para-22. In view of water pollution caused by
absence/dysfunctional CETPs/ETPs/STPs, the
Tribunal has, in the case of Aryavart Foundation Vs
M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. & Ors. 18, directed all
defaulting industries, other than green and white
category, connected with CETP, to make deposit
with the CPCB towards interim environmental
compensation, pending assessment of actual
compensation and further action, on the following
scale:
(i) Large Insdustries - Rs. 1 crore each
(ii) Medium Industries - Rs. 50 Lakhs each
(iii) Small Industries - Rs. 25 Lakhs each.
(ii) Para-23. In the present case, in view of massive
exercise already done by CPCB, it is not necessary
to require any further verification about the
existence of pollution in the said PIAs. The Tribunal
can direct that the polluting activities cannot be
allowed to continue till adequate measures are
taken as the Tribunal is bound to apply the
'Sustainable Development' 'Precautionary' and
'Polluter Pays' principle under Section 20 of the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to protect the
environment and the victims. The statutory
regulatory bodies can be required to straightaway
identify the particular industrial units int eh said PIAs
that are causing pollution, particularly those units
which fall under the red and orange category and
take action against them by way of closing the
polluting activity, initiating prosecution and
assessing and recovering compensation. Pending
such assessment, interim compensation may be
recovered on the scale adopted by this Tribunal in
the case of Vapi industrial area.
(iii) Para-28, Accordingly, we direct the CPCB in
coordination with all State PCBs/PCCs to take steps
in exercise of statutory powers under the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or any
other law to prohibit operation to polluting activities
int eh said CPAs and SPAs within three months and
furnish a compliance report to this Tribunal. The
Central Pollution Control Board, in coordination with
the State Boards/PCBs may make assessment of
compensation to be recovered from the said
polluting units for the period of last 5 years, taking
into account the cost of restoration and cost of
damage to the public health and environment and
the deterrence element. The scale of deterrence
may be related to the period and the frequency of
defaults. Such other factors as may be found
relevant may also be taken into account. No 'orange'
category units till the said areas are brought within
the prescribed parameters or till carrying capacity of
area is assessed and new units or expansion is
found viable having regard to the carrying capacity
of the area and environmental norms. Pending
assessment of compensation, interim compensation
be recovered at the scale adopted by this Tribunal in
the case of Vapi Industrial area as mentioned in
para 22 above."
5. A perusal of the order dated 06.02.2020 goes to show that the
industry of the appellant falls in a Critically Polluted Area (CPA) and that
under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006, it is a 'Large' industry. It also falls under the Red
category as per Final Document on Revised Classification of Industrial
Sectors under Red, Orange, Green and White Categories (February 29,
2016) published by Central Pollution Conservation Board (CPCB). The
order also goes to show that the appellant was directed to increase the
height of all stacks attached to the emission sources as auxillary process
equipment / bag filter/scrubber to minimum 30 meters latest by August
2019 vide order dated 06.06.2019. On an inspection carried out on
31.01.2020, it was found that the height of the chimney installed with the
bag filter in the detergent powder unit was below the prescribed norms
i.e. 30 meter.
6. Mr. Dhayani submits that the learned Single Judge was in error
inasmuch as no appeal lies to the National Green Tribunal against an
order passed under Section 31A of the Air Act, 1981. He, however, fairly
submits that an appeal lies against such an order under Section 31A of
the Air Act, 1981 to the Appellate Authority and against the order of the
Appellate Authority, an appeal lies before the National Green Tribunal
under Section 31B of the Air Act, 1981. He submits that notwithstanding
the provision of appeal before the Appellate Authority, the impugned order
directing to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.14 crores by way of Environmental
Compensation having been passed without affording any opportunity of
hearing, writ court ought to have entertained the writ petition and
therefore, the learned Single Judge was in error in relegating the
appellant to avail alternative remedy. He also submits that order of the
National Green Tribunal, which is referred to in the impugned order, is not
applicable to the petitioner as the said order was passed in the context of
Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETP). He submits that the
appellant did not receive the letter dated 06.06.2019, which was referred
to in the order dated 06.02.2020 and to buttress the contention, he has
drawn our attention to paragraph 8.8 of the writ petition.
7. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, endorses the submission of Mr. Dhayani to the extent that the
observation of the learned Single Judge that appeal lies against the order
of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board under Section 31B
of the Air Act, 1981 before the National Green Tribunal, was not correct.
He also endorses the submission of Mr. Dhayani that appeal, in fact, lies
before Appellant Authority under Section 31 of the Air Act, 1981. It is
submitted by him that despite notices issued to increase height of the
chimney, the same was not complied with by the appellant.
8. Relying on the affidavit filed, Mr. Tiwari submits that the amount of
Rs. 1.14 crores was determined in accordance with the guidelines issued
by the Central Pollution Board, which was adopted by Chhattisgarh
Pollution Control Board. He refutes the contention of Mr. Dhayani that
order dated 10.07.2019 of the National Green Tribunal is not applicable to
the petitioner.
9. On a query of the Court as to whether chimney has been increased
to 30 meters, Mr. Dhayani submits that, subsequently, height of the
chimney had been increased and the same was also intimated to the
authorities.
10. A perusal of paragraph 8.8 would go to show that there is no
categorical assertion that the notice dated 06.06.2019 has not been
received by the petitioner. However, we have not drawn any conclusion
on this aspect of the matter as well as in respect of other contention
advanced before us, as after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the materials on record, we are of the considered
opinion that in a matter of present nature, as held by the learned Single
Judge, it will be appropriate for the appellant to prefer an appeal, if so
advised, before the Appellate Authority.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
12. Before parting with the records, we, however, observe that in the
event of appellant preferring an appeal, the appellant will be entitled to
raise all contentions as may be available in law and facts and the
Appellate Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Gautam Chourdiya)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
