Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2133

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, SUDHIR AGARWAL, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert Member, AFROZ AHMAD, Expert Member
SUKHDEEP SINGH BUTTER – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 35/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sunaina
For the Respondents: None

Appeal to NGT not maintainable absent specific direction under Water Act s.33A or State Board order under Air Act; consent required only for emitting industrial plants – no evidence of pollutant emission precludes action.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(k), 21, 31 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33A - Appeal against refusal to act on complaint of pollution from automobile repair unit in residential area - Appeal not maintainable under Section 16(c) as no direction issued under Section 33A; not maintainable under Section 16(f) as no order under Air Act by State Board against which appeal under Section 31 filed - 'Industrial plant' under Section 2(k) requires emission of air pollutant; no evidence of emission, hence no consent required under Section 21 - Noise as air pollutant under Section 2(a) requires proof of injurious concentration; no material shown - Matter relating to noise prematurely before Tribunal as fresh inspection directed. (Paras 30-51)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Tribunal examines maintainability under specific provisions; assumes jurisdiction arguendo only if doubtful - Principles of natural justice not violated where no actionable order passed against appellant. (Paras 29-42)

Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged orders refusing action against automobile repair unit operating wheel balancing, alignment, scanning without consents, alleging pollution in residential area. Prior proceedings closed unit under old name; new unit claimed exempt. Authorities inspected, found no pollution or consent requirement, dropped action.

Findings of Court:
Appeal not maintainable; even if assumed maintainable, no violation found as unit not emitting pollutants or qualifying as industrial plant requiring consent. Directed fresh noise monitoring and decision within one month.

Issues: Maintainability of appeal under NGT Act Sections 16(c),(f); requirement of consents where no pollutants emitted; scope of 'industrial plant' and noise as pollutant.

Ratio Decidendi: Appeal maintainable only against specified orders/directions; consent regime applies to emitting plants - no emission, no consent needed; noise issue requires evidence and fresh verification before finality.

Result: Appeal disposed directing compliance with fresh noise report and decision.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges ppcb consent refusal orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prior closure and consent denials in residential area. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. appeals dismissed; supreme court remands for merits. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. unit restarts; ppcb finds no pollution, drops notice. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. subsequent oas dismissed; fresh complaints rejected. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. maintainability questioned under ngt act sections. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. no section 33a direction or section 31 appeal. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41)
8. no air pollutant emission; consent not required. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
9. noise pollution unproven; further monitoring directed. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
10. appeal disposed; noise report and decision mandated. (Para 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This Appeal has been preferred with a prayer to set aside orders, dated 30.10.2023 passed by Punjab Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘PPCB’) and dated 07.11.2022 passed by Senior Environmental Engineer, PPCB, Patiala. The Appellant has referred Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18(1) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act 2010’) whereunder this Appeal has been filed.

2. The facts in brief are that appellant Sukhdeep Singh Butter is a resident of Dashmesh Nagar, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, State of Punjab.

3. Respondent 5 i.e., Surjit Singh, son of Inder Singh commenced his business of automobile repairing and servicing with installation of wheel balancing machines, wheel alignment machine, hand tools, tyre changer machines, drill machines, grinder, air compressor etc. in 2001 in the neighbourhood of appellant.

4. Appellant’s mother Smt. Daljit Kaur filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1110/2012, Smt. Daljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others before Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh against respondent 5 which was transferred to this Tribunal and registered as Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) 29/2013(T HC), Daljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others. OA was disposed of by Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.2023 which reads as under: “We have heard Learned counsel for the parties.

By consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, inducing amicus curie appointed for the Applicant, the Application is being disposed of on following terms:

A. The industry of the Respondent No 8, which has now been completely closed down and the electricity supply is also disconnected shall remain close hereafter, until a regular consent to operate is obtained for re-operation thereof B. The Respondent No. 8 is at liberty to apply to the Punjab Pollution Control Board for consent to operate the industry.

The Punjab Pollution Control Board is at liberty to examine such Application of the Respondent No. 8 on merits thereof, considering the relevant norms and without any kind of prejudice in the context of the earlier closure of the industry.

The Application is being disposed of without considering anything about merits of the matter. The Punjab Pollution Control Board may also consider if it is within the norms.

The Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 states that such afresh Application will be moved within a period of one (1) week. It shall be moved at the most within a period of two (2) weeks, if so desired and thereafter the Punjab Pollution Control Board may expedite the process of considering the proposal and shall dispose of the Application within a reasonable period, as far as possible, within four (4) weeks. The Applicant is permitted to take all objections as may be permissible by making a due representation to the Pollution Control Board and may be heard prior to consideration of the proposal. Copy of this order may be given by dasti and Counsel for the Pollution Control Board may furnish such copies to the Concerned Authority without any delay. Typed copy of this order may be furnished, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2133

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, SUDHIR AGARWAL, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert Member, AFROZ AHMAD, Expert MemberSUKHDEEP SINGH BUTTER – AppellantVersusPUNJAB POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD – RespondentAPPEAL NO. 35/2023

Appeal to NGT not maintainable absent specific direction under Water Act s.33A or State Board order under Air Act; consent required only for emitting industrial plants – no evidence of pollutant emission precludes action.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, SUDHIR AGARWAL, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert Member, AFROZ AHMAD, Expert Member
SUKHDEEP SINGH BUTTER – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 35/2023