SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3059

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Citizens of Area Sabha & Anr – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2024 (WZ)|Original Application No.65 of 2024 (PB)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate holding for Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1/MPCB, Mr. Mayur Ovhal, Advocate holding for Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-3/PMC

Tribunal directs field-level monitoring, pollutant control measures, enhanced fines for garbage burning, and monthly public reviews to enforce air quality standards and waste management rules effectively.

Headnote:(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31A - Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 - National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2009 - Garbage burning and air pollution - Tribunal takes cognizance of news report on increased garbage burning and poor air quality - Directions issued for air quality monitoring, control of exceeding pollutants like PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2 - Proposed directions issued to authorities for non-compliance with waste management rules - Enhanced fines for garbage burning from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000 imposed - Monthly review and public reporting of garbage burning measures directed. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 10, 15)

(B) Environmental monitoring - High-level committees unsuitable for field-level monitoring of garbage burning - Local field personnel and CCTV installation recommended for identification and prevention - Mobile and continuous ambient air quality monitoring stations deployed, parameters largely within limits except specified locations. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
Application filed by citizens pursuant to news item on garbage burning incidents causing poor air quality. Authorities filed affidavits detailing air monitoring results, measures like electric buses, pollution control in crematoriums, road sweeping, waste processing, increased fines, and decentralized waste management. Non-compliances noted in certain areas under separate jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
Measures taken by municipal corporation appreciated as positive steps; air quality parameters mostly within limits; specific directions for controlling exceeding pollutants with timelines; monthly review of garbage burning measures to be conducted and posted online.

Issues: Whether adequate steps taken to prevent garbage burning and improve air quality; monitoring mechanisms for chronic burning spots; compliance with waste management rules and air quality standards.

Ratio Decidendi: Field-level monitoring by local personnel preferred over high-level committees for effective garbage burning prevention; authorities to implement pollutant control measures within specified timelines and ensure public transparency through monthly reviews.

Result: Original Application disposed of with directions for monthly review and online reporting of garbage burning measures.

Table of Content
1. applicants suggest joint committee for monitoring garbage burning spots. (Para 1)
2. court prefers field-level monitoring over high-level committee. (Para 2)
3. mpcb reports air quality monitoring; court directs no2/pm control measures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
4. pmc details public transport, electric vehicles, and pollution control initiatives. (Para 6)
5. pmc refutes mpcb non-compliances, attributes to cantonment board jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
6. pmc enhances fines and implements waste collection, monitoring measures. (Para 10 , 11)
7. pmc adopts decentralized waste management and segregation strategies. (Para 12)
8. pmc introduces complaint app; court acknowledges mitigation steps. (Para 13 , 14)
9. court disposes oa directing monthly review and public reporting. (Para 15)

ORDER

1. From the side of the applicants, learned counsel Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya has appeared and drawn our attention to the suggestions to be adopted by the relevant Authority to take care of the problem of garbage burning and pollution emitting out of it. The said suggestions have been filed on 15.04.2024, which are at pages 485 to 496 of the paper-book. In those suggestions, it is submitted that there are several chronic burning spots, such as the banks of streams and rivers, roadsides and service roads along highways, the foothills of hills and forest areas, scrap shops and scrap storage dump yards, industrial areas and open empty plots. According to her, these spots need to be identified, mapped and monitored regularly for which she says that a Joint Committee needs to be constituted, comprising representatives of (i)Divisional Commissioner, Pune, (ii) Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and (iii) Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Apart from this, experts from the reputed institutions such as Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune and Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, may be coopted. Some members in the civil society may also be taken in the Committee as may be deemed appropriate by this Tribunal.

2. We are of the view that garbage dumping is a kind of activity, which may take place in any of the localities, monitoring of which would be difficult for the high level committee. The persons, who are working in the field, need to be asked to monitor on the garbage burning activity. We had also directed MPCB-respondent No.1 to submit an affidavit as to whether CCTVs can be installed in order to identify such kind of activities of garbage burning.

3. From the side of respondent No.1-MPCB, additional affidavit-in- reply dated 28.05.2024 has been filed, wherein it is recorded that they have installed CAAQMS (Continuous Ambient Air Monitoring Stations) at three locations i.e. Savitribai Phule Pune University, Katraj Dairy and Karve Road, Pune. Bsides that, manual monitoring is being done at two locations i.e. MSEB Office, Nal Stop and Swargate near Traffic Police Chowky. Besides that, it is also recorded that mobile monitoring is being done at six locations, which are mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the said affidavit. The air quality which is monitored as per the CPCB Notification dated 18.11.2009 and analysis results for parameters such as Particulate Matter i.e. PM , PM and SO are found to be within prescribed limit at the above locations which are mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit and NO is found exceeded at one location at Chhatrapati x Sambhaji Maharaj Garden, JM Road, Shivajinagar. We direct that necessary steps be taken for ensuring that NO also is brought within x control at the said location. The measures to be taken to bring NO x within control shall also be suggested within 15 days from the date of uploading of this order and those will be implemented within next 15 days.

4. Further it is mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit of respondent No.1 that PM , PM and NO are exceeding the limit prescribed in the10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top