Anil Kumar vs Union of India And Ors

Section 14 & 15 read with section 18(1) of the NGT Act, 2010 (for the sake of brevity referred as "The Act 2010") is invoked by Mr. Anil Kumar S/o Mr. Rameshwar Prasad, resident of Village Ambehta Shekha, Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur for following directions:-

(i) Direct the Respondent no. 1 to 4 to conduct environmental impact assessment study relating to the operations of kohlus and their impact on the environment due unavailability of any law.

(ii) Direct the respondent no. 1 to 4 to mandate the installation of anti pollution control devices as may be prescribed/mandated by the Central Board/Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board or any other such competent authority for the establishment and operation of the Kohlus.

(iii) Direct the respondent nos. 1-5 to prepare guidelines/laws for the establishment, operations, regulations and supervision of kohlus.

(iv) Pass any other order which this court may deep fit and proper.

In support of the relief so sought the material proposition manifesting are that: the applicant is inhabitant of the village referred above and aggrieved by the unregulated and uncontrolled environmental pollution, de-gradation and damage being caused by the operation of the Kohlus situated at western Uttar Pradesh;. He has highlighted un-justified expenditure of the Government and other instrumentalities to control Air and water pollution without any positive result, there is hazardous adverse effect on the affecting the health of public at large, He seeks direction referred as about.

At the time of admission we had issued notices to the respondents who are Union of India represented by MoEF; State of UP represented by Chief Secretary; Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) ; Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and Sugarcane Development Department, UP.

In response to the notice of this action the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 have filed its report and other respondents are proceeded ex-parte for default in filing of their replies.

Considering the nature of the relief sought and the cause which the applicant has canvassed before the Tribunal we are taking the case for final hearing today by consent of all the parties.

We have heard substantially the applicant, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 Mr. Raj Kumar, and the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 Mr. Pradeep Mishra.

Mr.Pradeep Mishra representing UPPCB would submit that as of now the Pollution Control Board has not conducted any study with regard to kohlus which are run individually and are not brought under the mischeives of provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

As regard Respondent no. 3-CPCB is concerned it has taken the stand that though there are various norms and measures and standard prescribed for sugar industry but there is no guidelines available for the control of operation of Kohlus. Therefore, they also contend there is need for monitoring and assessment of process of operation of kohlus by the concerned State Pollution Control Board for controlling pollution and they are also of the opinion that the operation of kohlus produces large quantity of hazardous gases and also increases the SPM as well as temperature of the concerned area. They contend concerned SPCB should survey and monitor the sites and take appropriate steps. In short they also favour the ground urged by the applicant in the application.

The applicant has filed material information in the application, particularly a brief note regarding the sugarcane production data from the Indian Sugarcane manufacturing association(ISMA) showing that in the year 2010-11 the quantity of cane crushed was 1261 Lac MT in the year 2011-12 it was same while in the year 2012-13 it increased to 1411 Lac MT but it reduced in the year 2013-14 as 1332 Lac MT and again receded to 1269 Lac MT. During the relevant period average cane crushed is 1296 Lac MT and the cane crushed in the kolhus is 31.60 % of the above that is 409.40 Lac MT. Further the statistics shows number of kolhus in the western and central U.P is totally 5000.

Be that as it may, the report is disputed by respondents as is not under a signature of recognised authority and therefore we have referred to this only for the purpose to appreciate the anxiety of the applicant with regard to the functioning of the kohlus.

However, we are satisfied, the applicant has made out a prima-facie case that regulation to control the function of these kohlus and the control of pollution that emanates from its running which is impacting atmosphere adversely to the detriment of the life of the human as well as fauna is necessary. Respondents have also admitted that there is no scientific study or any report with regard to working of this project.

Thus, we are satisfied that in the first instance it will be necessary to call for joint inspection report from the CPCB and UPPCB with regard to issue relating to pollution in the area due to running of kohlus. Apart from this joint inspection, the CPCB and UPPCB is required to conduct independent study of the functioning of the Kohlus in the nature of pollutant it releases and adverse impact, if any, it will cause on the environment and suggest such remedial action as may be necessary.

Thus, we further direct Respondent No. 1-MoEF to place before the Tribunal any rules, regulation or standing orders, if any, issued with regard to control of kohlus, if not to file a submission suggesting such action to prevent the pollution being caused by Kohlus.

After securing the joint inspection and individual report from the CPCB, UPPCB and MoEF we would further consider course of action that is required in the given case.

We grant three months time from today to the Respondents to file the report after serving copies on the Applicant, who may file response to it, if any, within one week thereafter.

Upon filing of the report it shall be registered as fresh Original Application and be posted for further action before the Tribunal.

We reserve the liberty of the applicant to seek such further direction from the Tribunal as the circumstance may require.

Hence, Original Application No. 608 of 2016 is thus disposed with the direction above but no order as to cost.