Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2016) 01 NGT CK 0012

Loksevabhavi Vikas Sanstha And Ors vs Managing Director & Vice Chairman And Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 15 January 2016

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.R. Kingaonkar, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Application No. 93 Of 2015 M.A. No. 193, 229 Of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 980 words
1.

This Application is filed by the Applicants who claim to be victims of environmental degradation due to mis-management of the activities of Food Mall and Toll Plaza at Mumbai-Pune Express Highway at Khalapur.

2.

Shorn of unessential, their contention is that on the Express Highway, there is no suitable waste management plant to take care of disposals and the waste generated from the Food Malls, particularly the waste generated from the half consumed food or the food thrown unscientifically without required treatment by the consumers, customers or the other persons who use the eateries at the Mall. The stale food is heaped without any kind of organised mechanism, and sometimes lays helter-skelter outside the Food Mall which generates repugnant smell even to such an extent that passers-by feels nausea while going from nearby Express Highway of the Food Mall. The stale food and other waste water sometimes is mixed with flow of running drain water (nullah) which cause environmental danger due to adverse impact of causing breeding ground/ places for mosquitoes and other insects. The uncontrolled activities of the Food Mall, thus ought to be regulated in order to ensure proper environment on the Express Highway and nearby vicinity around the Food Mall.

3.

The Applicants further alleged that though Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) issued various directions, yet the Respondent Nos.1, 5, 6 & 7 did not take care to eradicate the problems and did not adhere to the directions. They alleged that Respondent Nos.1 and 5 utterly failed to comply with the directions of the MPCB as regards providing of adequate and suitable waste Management system at Khalapur Toll Plaza and Food Mall.

4.

It is not necessary to reproduce the pleadings of the contesting Respondents inasmuch as though they have initially denied the averments made in the Application, yet subsequently the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 reported compliance of the directions issued by the MPCB, as far as proposal for provision of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) at Toll Plaza, and the same was said to be in order after inspection by the MPCB. Obviously, Respondent Nos.6 & 7 are required only to complete STP as directed by the MPCB for which learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 & 7 states that it would be completed within two (02) months from approval/ consent granted by the MPCB. He states that an application is submitted to MPCB for grant approval for the STP for Khalapur Toll Plaza and foundation work is already completed. He makes such a statement under the instructions and therefore, we accept the same. Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for MPCB would submit that the MPCB will consider the proposal and will expedite grant of consent which will be issued within a period of four (04) weeks hereafter.

5.

We make it clear that after receiving the consent to establish/ approval, the work of establishment of STP and operation thereof at Toll Plaza by Respondent Nos.6 & 7 shall be made functional within a period of three (03) months. In case of failure of Respondent Nos.6 & 7 to comply with these directions of the Tribunal, they will be liable to pay costs of Rs.20 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as remedial costs and further amount of Rs.5 Lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) per month for restoration due to the default committed by them. Obviously, it is expected that in order to avoid such cost-wise penalty, the work of STP will be made operational within the stipulated time frame after the approval is granted by the MPCB.

6.

So far as other directions regarding the Food Mall of Respondent No.1 are concerned, let it be noted that by order dated October 17th, 2015, this Tribunal directed the Respondent No.1 to prepare a comprehensive plan which shall include installation of waste management plan including STP through independent agency on cost sharing basis.

7.

In pursuance of such direction, a plan is submitted by Respondent No.1. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 under instructions would submit that the proposed plan will be implemented as per the Work Order issued on December 22nd, 2015 and the entire process of preparation of report will be completed prior to end of February, 2016 and the report of compliance will be submitted to the Tribunal. He further submits that the waste management plant including STP and MSW processing would be made operational by January, 2017. We point out that intimation to the contractors need not be separately given after the plan is prepared and approved but it should be pari passu activity in order to save time for implementation of the plan. This work shall be carried out expeditiously in order to ensure the availability of good quality ambient air, free of pollution, inside and outside the Food Mall. The disposal management in respect of the waste material, not only of food but other materials of disposable nature and useful for bio-degradation be shifted to the plant used for biodegradable and composting as well as the non-biodegradable materials like plastic waste shall be segregated and disposed of separately in scientific manner as the per guidelines of the MPCB and/or Expert Member of IIT, Powai. In the interregnum period, Respondent Nos.1 & 5 shall ensure that short term measures be taken to avoid pollution, within and outside the Food Mall premises.

8.

Respondent Nos.1 & 5, in case of failure to comply above directions and timeline will be liable to pay exemplary penal cost for restoration of environment and therefore, we are putting them to caution so as to avoid the delay in execution of the directions of the Tribunal. They are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 Lakh which shall be given by them to the Applicant No.1 as litigation cost.

9.

The Application is accordingly, disposed of along with M.As filed therein i.e. M.A. No.193/2015 and M.A. No.229/2015 in above terms.