AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Execution Application, applicant is seeking execution of the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in O.A. No. 324/2016.
In the Original Application, the applicant had raised the grievance against pollution of Kosi river in Rampur District by polluting industrial activities. The Tribunal in the order dated 23.07.2019 had considered the report of CPCB and Joint Committee wherein certain remedial actions were suggested in respect of M/s Radico Khaitan Limited which is an alcohol manufacturing unit along with some other industrial units. The Tribunal while disposing of the OA in paragraph 14 had directed as under:-
“14. The industries in the question in the State of UP as well as Uttrakhand may comply with the deficiencies noticed in the reports which may be overseen by a joint Committee of CPCB and the concerned State PCBs. The State PCBs may take necessary further action based on the observations of the joint Committee, which may include coercive measures like recovery of compensation and initiating prosecution, following due process of law. An action taken report may be periodically provided by the State PCBs to the Chairman, CPCB for any further directions for the remedial action. The State PCBs may recover compensation already assessed by taking suitable coercive measures, including closure. The State PCBs may impose appropriate conditions as part of consent conditions. Since the rivers in questions are finally meeting river Ganga, orders of this Tribunal in OA 200/2014, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., wherein vide order dated 18.12.2019, the Tribunal directed the NMCG and concerned States, including Uttarakhand and UP to prevent discharge of industrial effluents in river Ganga and its tributaries by ensuring proper functioning of ETPs/CETPs, are attracted which need compliance. The Ganga matter was last considered on 08.2.2021 in the light of progress report and directions were issued for further remedial action to ensure prevention of pollution of river Ganga and its tributaries and to file a further progress report with the NMCG. Accordingly, the States of UP and Uttrakhand may include the present issue also in its progress report to the NMCG as the issue has bearing on pollution of Ganga.”
Pressing the present Execution Application, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the direction relating to recovery of compensation and initiation of prosecution has not been complied with and coercive measures indicated therein have not been taken. He has further submitted that EC deposited was upto 2019 and after the order of the Tribunal, no EC has been deposited.
Learned Counsel appearing for UPPCB opposing the Execution Application has submitted that the applicant is unnecessarily filing repeated Execution Applications in the same OA in respect of the same order and this is seventh such application, therefore, he is misusing the process of the court. He has submitted that the respondent- Radico Khaitan Limited is complying with all the norms and there is no violation of the direction of the Tribunal issued on 18.03.2021. He further submits that there are 46 units operating in the area and the applicant is targeting only respondent no. 2, Rampur Distillery (Radico Khaitan).
Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that earlier also in respect of the same direction of the Tribunal, Execution Application was filed which was dismissed, therefore, fresh application is not maintainable and EC of Rs.7.29 crores has already been paid by respondent no. 2 and there is no subsequent violation and respondent no. 2 is complying with all the norms. He further submits that the order dated 18.03.2021 was in respect of 14 industries but the applicant is repeatedly targeting respondent no. 2 for oblique purpose. He has also referred to the orders of the Tribunal reflecting the conduct of the applicant in other matters.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the applicant is filing repeated Execution Applications with same or similar allegations against respondent no. 2 on the plea of non-compliance of the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in O.A. No.324/2016. The details of such applications are as under:-
i. The applicant had filed EA No. 13/2020 in O.A. No. 324/2016 which was disposed of by order dated 18.03.2021.
ii. He had filed EA No. 19/2021 seeking execution of the order dated 18.03.2021 which was finally decided by order dated 12.05.2022.
iii. He had again filed EA No. 23/2022 which was disposed of by order dated 03.02.2023.
iv. He had filed the fourth Execution Application being EA No. 03/2023 which was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 03.02.2023 by holding as under:-
“1. This application seeks enforcement of order of this Tribunal dated 18.03.2021 in O.A. No. 324/2016, Shailesh Singh vs. State of UP & Ors. By the said order, the Tribunal directed remedial action against pollution of Kosi river in Rampur District by the polluting industrial activities. The directions included action against M/s Radico Khaitan. According to the applicant, the said directions have not been carried out. Apart from enforcement of the said order, the applicant has also sought initiation of criminal proceedings.
We find that the same applicant has also filed EA No. 23/2022 in the same matter. Thus second application is not maintainable.
Moreover, criminal proceedings have to be filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 30 of the NGT Act, 2010.
The application is disposed of accordingly.”
v. He had fifth Execution Application being EA No. 25/2023 which was disposed of by order dated 07.08.2023.
vi. Now, again he has filed the present Execution Application.
It is worth-noting that the Tribunal while deciding EA No. 25/2023 by order dated 07.08.2023 had duly taken note of the stand of respondent no. 2 that amount of Environmental Compensation of Rs. 7.29 crores was already deposited and there was no discharge of untreated water in open land. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of that order had held that there nothing was shown for non-compliance of the order. Hence, the application was held to be non-maintainable.
The applicant had filed an application for review of the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in EA No. 25/2023 which was also disposed of by order dated 21.08.2023.
CPCB and UPPCB have filed their reply in this EA showing that respondent no. 2 is complying with all the requisite norms. The reply of respondent no. 2 reveals that it has ground water NOC from CGWA since January, 2021 which is valid till 08.04.2024. It further reveals that respondent no. 2 presently has valid CTO and Authorization issued by UPPCB on 19.09.2022 having validity till 31.12.2026. It has been pointed out that due to typographical mistake in the order dated 07.08.2023 instead of “UPGWA”, the word “CGWA” has been mentioned.
Thus, we find that the applicant has failed to point out any non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2021. On the contrary, we are of the view that the applicant is misusing the process of the court by filing repeated Execution Applications on the same issue especially when earlier two execution Applications have already been held to be non-maintainable in view of the compliance done and in view of the orders passed in earlier Execution Applications.
Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gajubha Jadeja Jesar vs. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 993 wherein the Tribunal in the background of the fact that out of 1689 units in the Country, the applicant has chosen only the Project proponent, has found the petition to be the motivated petition. Somewhat similar situation exists in the present case also.
The Counsel for respondent no. 2 has also rightly referred to the orders dated 04.01.2019 and 19.01.2019 passed in O.A. No. 1084/2019 in the matter of Shailesh Singh vs. State of U.P. wherein the Tribunal had questioned the conduct of the applicant in filing large number of petitions before the Tribunal.
Hence, we dismiss this Execution Application with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- which is to be deposited by the applicant with the NGT Bar Association within two weeks.