Panchu vs State Of U.P And Ors

We have the presence of the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the all the Respondents. By consent the application is taken up for final hearing.

Heard.

This application is under section 14 of the NGT Act whereby the applicant, on the basis of facts narrated in the application, sought following relief:-

A. Direct the U. P. Pollution Control Board not to permit the Respondents industries to discharge the untreated effluents in the green belt, irrigation drain and vacant plots and in open area near Village Kasna, G. B. Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U. P.

B. Direct U. P. Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board to conduct a joint inspection of this industry and submit the Report before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

C. Direct the Respondent Industry not to operate until and unless they have taken permission from the Central Ground Water Authority.

D. To pass any further order/s that may be deemed necessary and fit on the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases.

At the stage of admission itself, having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, we were of the opinion that the immediate action is necessary lest, the pollution in area will go unchecked. Consequentially, while issuing notice regarding admission, we had directed the UPPCB and the CPCB to conduct surprise inspection of the industries, namely promotional club-Respondent No. 4 which according to the applicant was guilty of creating environmental hazard and impacting the lives of the people adversely.

We had fixed a period of time within which inspection was to be conducted and report be filed. Learned Counsel for the UPPCB reported that joint inspection was conducted and report is filed before the Tribunal which clearly records the finding that the allegations made by the applicant in the application that Respondent No. 5 was releasing highly pollutant discharge from its premises in the entire area in the vicinity consequent to which survival of the fauna and flora was severely affected is factually correct. The report supports substantial allegation made by the applicant.

The board had further reported that having noticed the unit was at default and was not compliant; they had passed an order for immediate closer with further direction to the electricity board and water authority to disconnect supply of energy and water to the premises in question.

Respondent No. 5 is present and does not dispute factual position that the unit has been closed down and consequently it is now not functional.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits, as long as the unit (Respondent No. 5) remains non-functional the applicant may not have any grievance, if the board takes appropriate action in case of breach by the said industrial unit affecting the environment adversely.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 the industrial unit submits they cannot be deprived of the right to run the industry if they make the unit compliant. Mr. Pradeep Mishra submits that the unit may remove all the deficiencies recorded in the joint inspection and intimate the board who will get the unit inspected and will have no objection to allow them operate.

Submissions of Learned Counsel representing industrial unit in question and the submission on behalf of the Pollution Control Board is placed on record.

In the circumstance we are of the opinion that as of now the grievance of the applicant has been sufficiently addressed. The Respondent No. 5 who was discharging untreated affluent in the green belt causing adverse effect on the environment and risking the lives of the people has since been shutdown and is non-functional. However, there is a necessity to ensure that the unit does not restart with deficiencies and pollutes the atmosphere of the environment. Hence we dispose of this case with the following directions:-

I. Respondent No. 5 (promotional club) shall remain shutdown and non-functional till it removes all the deficiencies recorded in the joint inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board.

II. The unit after removing all deficiencies and complying with the directions, shall appeal to the Pollution Control board who may inspect the unit and if satisfied that unit is compliant, will consider its application in accordance with law. The unit shall not start if it does not comply with the direction, without obtaining prior consent of the board and approval from this Tribunal.

Hence, the Original Application No. 117 of 2017 is therefore disposed of in terms of these directions with no order as to cost.