Explore the comprehensive legal analysis conducted by the court regarding the operations of stone crushers and their compliance with environmental norms. This case highlights the importance of adhering to regulations and government obligations in the interest of environmental protection. Follow along for insights into the latest developments in environmental law and regulatory enforcement.
Facts
- Deputy Director, Mining addressed a letter to the Regional Officer, Pollution Control Board for necessary action based on a complaint.
- Stone crushers in the area causing air and noise pollution, addressed in a letter to the SDM, Haldwani.
- NGT interim order modified to allow loading/unloading operations till 8 p.m. for stone crushing units.
- NGT directed the State and Pollution Control Board to take action to stop the operation of the stone crushing units.
- Complaint made regarding stone crushers affecting teaching and health of students and teachers.
- NGT petition filed by appellant for relocating stone crushers due to pollution issues.
- Various dates listed for the matter with exchange of pleadings and reports from Pollution Control Board.
- Complaint filed by Principal of Government Inter College regarding the impact of stone crushers.
- Original Application No. 332 of 2017 disposed of with specific directions after hearing learned counsels.
- Reports showed stone crushers operating near residential houses and agricultural fields without proper permissions and violating norms.
- NGT passed interim order restricting operation of stone crushers to specific day time hours after joint inspection.
- Appellants sought closure/re-location of stone crushers due to environmental violations.
- After Supreme Court remand, NGT passed a fresh order disposing of the O.A. No. 332/2017
- State Government tasked with assessing the functioning of stone crushers for compliance with environmental norms
- Steps to be taken for closure of offending units found violating environmental norms
Also Read: Insurance Claim Repudiation due to Fire Incident: Court’s Legal Analysis
Arguments
- The original application (449/2019) was not filed by the appellants who had filed the earlier O.A No. 332/2017.
- The withdrawal of O.A. No. 449/2019 at the instance of the appellants was deemed not proper.
- O.A. No. 449/2019 was directed to be listed for the next date due to the above reasons.
- On 27.08.2019, it was clarified that O.A. No. 449/2019 was not filed by the original applicant, but registered by the office on receipt of a report by the respondents.
- In light of the order passed while disposing original application (332/2017), the matter was ordered to be listed in court again.
Analysis
- State Government found in continued inaction despite constitutional obligation to enforce environmental laws
- Issues were never fully addressed despite findings of violation of government policy and environmental norms
- NGT should have decided the case on merit instead of closing it prematurely
- Existing industrial units must comply with environmental laws to protect public benefit
- Adherence to environmental and pollution norms is essential for all industrial units, existing or new
- NGT directed State Government to assess stone crushers’ compliance and take action if found violating norms
- Government report highlighted violations but no action taken to shut down units as per NGT’s directions
- NGT dismissed the case based on applicant’s request to withdraw, instead of deciding on merit
- Existing units cannot claim a right to pollute environment due to being operational before certain laws were enacted
- The view taken in the impugned order that the O.A. No.449/2019 does not require adjudication is not in order.
- The Tribunal should ascertain whether substantial compliance of its earlier orders was made by the two stone crushing units of the respondents.
Decision
- Respondent no. 4 and 4A are directed to submit an undertaking to shift their stone crushing units outside the residential area by 30th November, 2018.
- Failure to submit the undertaking will result in steps being taken against respondent no. 4 and 4A for their removal.
- The matter was disposed of by the Court with an order allowing respondent no. 4 and 4A to continue operations till 30th November, 2018, subject to compliance with environmental laws.
- NGT is ordered to render its decision in O.A. No.449/2019 without being influenced by previous observations.
- The undertaking from respondent no. 4 and 4A must be filed within a week from the date of the judgment.
Case Title: TEJINDER KUMAR JOLLY Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (2021 INSC 751)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000218 / 2021
