AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Shashikant Sharma resident of village Raghunathpur, Sector-22, Noida, Uttar Pradesh has sent the present letter petition by post, which has been treated and registered as original application, complaining that Mr. Abhijeet Singh Tanwar S/o Mr. Surender Tanwar resident of R-33, Sector 12, Noida is running a Gym in the name of Unisex Fitness 22 Gym at Dayanand Sharma Building, on M.P. Road No. 1, Opposite, Government Inter Collage, next to IIFL Bank, Sector 22, Noida which has been taken over by Mr. Amit Gujar and his gang. Mr. Dyanand Sharma, owner-landlord of the building got electricity connection to the above said gym disconnected due to illegal possession by Mr. Amit Gujar and his gang. Mr. Amit Gujar has got a D.G. set installed at the entry gate of the building which is being run for 18 to 19 hours daily creating noise and air pollution and creating serious health hazards to residents of the locality particularly senior citizens and children.
Vide order dated 31.10.2022, this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee with direction to submit factual and action taken report and notice was also ordered to be issued to Mr. Abhijeet Singh Tanwar S/o S/o Mr. Surender Tanwar resident of R-33, Sector 12, Noida.
Pursuant to service of notice, Mr. Abhijeet Singh Tanwar has appeared in person and submitted that he was running the gym in partnership but the partnership has been dissolved and he has left the business. However, no reply has been filed by him.
Report of the Joint Committee has been filed vide email dated 10. 02.2023. The relevant part of the report of the Joint Committee is reproduced below:-
“Report of a Joint Committee constituted in compliance of the order of Hon'ble NGT dated 31-10-2022, in the matter of O.A. No. 690 of 2022, Shashikant Sharma Vs State of UP.
X X X X X
2.0 COMPLIANCE REPORT
2.1 Constitution of the Joint Committee
In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble NGT, a Joint Committee comprising of the following member was constituted:
Shri Dharmendra Singh, City Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Shri Vijay Kumar Rawal, Sr. Manager (WC-2), Noida Authority, Noida.
Shri Purnaditya Pratap Singh, AEE, UPPCB, Noida.
2.2 Action Taken Report
2.2.1. Previously, in this regard a complaint was received in the Board and the site was inspected by UPPCB in June 2022 and in compliance of the direction of SPCB that the DG set was removed immediately. After that a joint inspection was done with CPCB officials regarding the complaint on 22/07/2022 (Annexu re-I). During that inspection no DG set was found at that site.
2.2.2. The inspection by joint Committee was held on 06.01.2023. During inspection of the Joint Committee no DG set was found in and around the premises. Further, it was brought to the notice of the Joint Committee that the DG set has been removed by the Gym owner in the month of July-2022. The photograph of site is enclosed (Annexure-II).”
Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ramesh Chand, Senior Manager on behalf of NOIDA vide email dated 20.02.2023. The relevant part of the affidavit by NOIDA is reproduced below:-
“Affidavit on behalf of the respondent-NOIDA
X X X X
It is respectfully submitted that a copy of complaint dated 31.05.2022 was also sent to U.P Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) by the complainant, pursuant to which on 04.06.2022 inspection of the site was conducted by officials of UPPCB. During inspection a D.G. Set of capacity 15 KW was found installed outside the Unisex Fitness 22 Gym and the officials present during inspection were directed to seal the D.G. set. It is respectfully submitted that during re-inspection of the said property on 12.07.2022 the D.G. set was not found installed. Subsequently on 22.07.2022, the said property was again inspected by officials of UPPCB along with the officials of CPCB and the D.G set was again not found at the site.
Vide order dated 31.10.2022 passed in O.A. No. 690 of 2022, the Hon'ble NGT constituted a joint committee comprising of State PCB, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, NOIDA and District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar and directed them to visit the site, verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial actions.
Vide email dated 04.11.2022, the order dated 31.10.2022 was received by the NOIDA Authority for taking necessary actions.
It is respectfully submitted that in compliance of order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble NGT in O.A. bearing No. 690 of 2022 titled as "Shashikant Sharma Vs. State of U.P." on 30.11.2022, a visit was made by a team of officers of NOIDA Authority, to the site for inspection and to verify the factual position as stated in the complaint dated 31.05.2022.
In this regard it is submitted that, at the time of visit by NOIDA Authority to the said property, the property owner, namely Sh. Dayanand Sharma informed the team of officers that the aid property was constructed in the year 2008 and has a sanctioned load capacity of 2KW. At the time of visit by the officials on 30.11.2022 neither gym related activities were darned out in the said property nor D.G set was found installed. Photographs of the said property taken during the visit by the officials on 30.11.2022 are annexed herewith as Annexure-1.
The information was sought by the NOIDA Authority from the Regional Office, UPPCB regarding the action taken by the UPPCB pursuant to the complaint dated 31.05.2022 filed by the complainant namely Shashikant Sharma before the Hon' ble NGT. Vide letter dated 31.01.2023 the UPPCB provided information pertaining to steps taken by them with respect to the complaint dated 31.05.2022 as explained in Para 3 above. Copy of the reply dated 31.01.2023 by UPPCB is annexed herewith as Annexure -2.
9 The grievance of the complainant regarding air and noise pollution caused by the D.G. set for 18-19 hours on daily basis has already been addressed. The D.G. set is no more installed at the site. ”
It is evident from the report of the Joint Committee and reply filed on behalf of the NOIDA that DG set previously installed had been removed and no DG set was found in the premises in question at the time of the visit.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no further action is required to be taken on the present application which is disposed of accordingly.