Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2023) 10 NGT CK 0005

Vijaypa vs State of U.P. & Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 4 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Shrivastava, CP · Sudhir Agarwal, JM · Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 555 Of 2022

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

8 paragraphs · 581 words
1.

This O.A. No. 555/2022 was registered on the basis of a letter petition sent by the residents of Village Pratapur, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh making an allegation that M/s Moon Process was operating by using unapproved fuel by violating the environmental norms, causing health hazard to the local residents, and damage to agricultural lands. The Tribunal by order dated 06.09.2022 had formed a joint committee with the following directions:-

“3. Prima facie, the averments made in the application raise questions relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In view of the averments made in the application, we consider it appropriate that a Joint Committee be constituted to verify the factual position. Accordingly, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising of representative of State PCB, and District Magistrate, Hapur and direct the same to meet, undertake visits to the site, look into the grievances of the applicant, associate the applicant and representative of the concerned project proponent, verify the factual position and submit its report within one month by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.

4.

In case the Joint Committee observes any violation of consent conditions/environmental norms, then it shall forward a copy of its report to:-

(i) the Project Proponent to enable it to comply with the recommendations in its report or file objections against its observations/recommendations and file its response before this Tribunal as desired within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the report of the Joint Committee; and

(ii) the State PCB and District Magistrate, Hapur to enable them to take appropriate remedial action by giving notice to/hearing the project proponent and following due process of law in accordance with Statutory provisions mandating them to take remedial action for prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution/degradation and for protection and improvement of environment and submit their action taken reports within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the report of the Joint Committee.”

2.

The report of the joint committee dated 13.12.2022 has been filed disclosing  that  the  Project  Proponent  was  operating  without  requisite permissions under the environmental law. Annexure-I enclosed with the report reveals that the Chief Environment Engineer (Circle-1) Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board had passed the order dated12.12.2022 for closure of the unit and for disconnection of water and electricity of the unit. By the said order, Environmental Compensation of Rs. 10,12,500/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twelve Thousand Five Hundred only) for the default of 162  days  has  been  proposed.  Against  this  order,  the  appellant  has preferred a separate Appeal being Appeal No.07/2023 which has been disposed of today by a separate order, permitting the Appellant to file response as against the proposed environmental compensation and directing the authority to decide the issue of quantum of compensation. In that appeal, the appellant has not questioned the findings of operation of the unit without requisite permissions and the order of closure of the unit hence the same is treated to be final.

3.

In view of the subsequent development noted above nothing further is required to be done in the present OA especially when the requisite action has already been taken against the Project Proponent by the competent authority.

4.

The Original Application is accordingly disposed of.