ORDER

1. In compliance with our previous order dated 07.03.2024, applicant has filed English translation of the 7/12 extract of 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is found to be defective by the Registry as per its report dated 21.11.2024. But we overrule these objections and take this document on record.

2. Thereafter, we have heard the argument of learned counsel Ms. Reshma P. Bhurke representing applicant in this matter. When we asked from her as to what is the evidence in support of her case regarding pollution, she has drawn our attention to page no.96 of the paper book, wherein photographs of the site in question are annexed and indicating the same, it is urged by her that there are soot and dust particles, which can be clearly seen. But we cannot make out any such soot or dust particles visible in these photographs. Thereafter, she has drawn our attention to page no.97 of the paper book as well, in which there are also some photographs annexed, based on which it is tried to be asserted that there were fruit trees at the site in question and on the basis of this, it is further urged that the Joint Committee Report is absolutely false.

3. From the side of respondent No.2- MPCB, learned counsel Mr. Vilas Jadhav has appeared before us, who has drawn our attention to the 1^st Joint Committee Report, which is annexed at page nos.191 to 292 of the paper book and read out the relevant para of that report at point no.2.1, wherein it is clearly mentioned that at the time of inspection, which was conducted by the Joint Committee on 30.11.2022 and 01.12.2022, applicant along-with his two sons were present at the said site. Thereafter, he drew our attention to the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal, wherein this report was considered and following order was passed:-

“2. By our previous order dated 03.04.2023, we had directed the respondent No. 1/Project Proponent to file objection against the Joint Committee report, if any, in pursuance of which, comments have been submitted by the respondent No. 1 instead of any objection, where-in it is submitted that the soil samples, which were collected, were found to be within parameters, which means that the same was not found contaminated, hence there is no need for data to be provided by the applicant of last five years for assessment of the damages. The Committee has made recommendation with respect to ETP of the industry and adequate APCS, regarding which it is submitted that the ETP of the industry is a batch type ETP that is used only whenever required. The said ETP has been upgraded as per the directions given by the State PCB and also the industry has upgraded its APCS. It is further submitted that in view of absence of substantial evidence to show that the industry has polluted the agricultural land of the petitioner, recommendations made by the Committee in para no. 6.2 need to be quashed.

3. From the side of respondent No. 2/MPCB, learned Counsel Mr. Vilas Jadhav has appeared, who has filed reply affidavit dated 31.03.2023, where-in it is submitted that the land of the applicant/complainant is adjoining to the land of the industry in question, which is located in the industrial zone which is declared by the Regional Town Planning and Development Authority. The industry has obtained Consent to Operate dated 30.04.2014 and 1st Consent to Operate dated 31.03.2015, which has been renewed up to 30.11.2024. In the remaining part of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2/MPCB, we find that neither air pollution is found to have been done by the industry nor is any violation found to be there with respect to hazardous waste disposal. Whatever infirmities were found from time to time, regarding which show cause notices were issued. After receiving the compliance report from the Project Proponent, no adverse action was required to be taken at their end.

4. By our previous order dated 03.04.2023, we had directed the applicant to provide details of the record regarding agricultural produce/plant