2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3646

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Judicial Member, VIJAY KULKARNI, Expert Member
Samita Rajendra Patil – Appellant
Versus
Jindal Steel Works Ltd. – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2015 (WZ)|I.A. NO.210/2022 (WZ)|I.A. NO.329/2022 (WZ)

Expert environmental clearances final if not perverse; high court buffer permissions bind; satellite imagery needs causation proof for liability; restoration/CSR preferred over closure for compliant projects with mitigation.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - CRZ Notification, 2011 & 2019 - Alleged environmental violations by steel plant including mangrove destruction, waste dumping, air/water pollution, creek diversion, and CRZ breaches - Plant expansions granted environmental clearances post expert scrutiny confirming no mangroves within 50m buffer at grant time; subsequent growth led to high court permission for operations - Satellite imagery showed 1.89 Ha mangrove loss (2011-2021) not conclusively attributable to project proponent; waste non-hazardous per analysis; emissions largely compliant - Polluter pays principle applied conditionally without closure; compensatory plantation mandated. (Paras 1-160)

(B) Environmental Clearances - Scope and finality - Once granted by expert bodies after detailed appraisal (e.g., no mangroves in construction zone per contemporaneous reports), cannot be lightly disturbed; challenges time-barred attain finality - Subsequent buffer zone issues resolved via high court leave post-judgment mandating 50m buffer. (Paras 148-151)

(C) Joint Committee Reports - Binding value - Exhaustive site inspections, satellite analysis, sampling find partial violations (procedural emissions, pre-permission construction); recommend restoration over penal closure for national importance projects adopting mitigation tech. (Paras 71, 80, 143)

Facts of the case:
Applicants sought steel plant closure for alleged mangrove destruction via expansions (coke oven, jetty, conveyor), hazardous waste dumping on agriculture/mangroves, pollution impacting health/fishing, CRZ breaches in creek-adjacent area. Respondents denied, citing clearances, permissions, non-hazardous waste, natural mangrove changes/cyclones, CSR repairs. Joint Committee verified via studies (satellite 2011-2021, sampling), found minor losses/non-compliances, no conclusive proponent causation for major damage.

Findings of Court:
No plant closure; mangrove loss (1.89 Ha) not proven solely attributable - mandate 15 Ha compensatory plantation within 1 year; creek restoration plan under state supervision; Rs.1,60,80,000 as CSR for pollution lapses (no prior penalties); uphold clearances/high court permissions; waste non-hazardous, consented dumping.

Issues: Attribution of mangrove/creek damage to industrial activities vs natural/dumping causes; CRZ compliance for expansions in buffer zones; hazardous nature of slag/waste; quantum of environmental compensation; validity of pre/post-2018 clearances.

Ratio Decidendi: Expert clearances final unless perverse; high court permission binds for buffer operations; restoration/CSR over closure for compliant national projects; satellite imagery insufficient without ground truth/causation proof; responsible entities undertake excess compensatory measures.

Result: Original Application disposed; restoration directives issued, no closure/costs.

Table of Content
1. environmental damage by industrial expansion and mangrove destruction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. government obligations for mangrove protection and notification (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 17)
3. industry defenses on permissions, land use, and no mangrove destruction (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. mpcb findings on consents, violations, and compliance monitoring (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 43 , 44 , 52 , 53 , 54)
5. authorities' actions on crz violations and land permissions (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. applicants' rejoinders on waste hazards and ec breaches (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
7. mczma site inspection on crz mapping and violations (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
8. industry rejoinders on crz compliance and security measures (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
9. ongoing complaints and permissions post-2016 (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
10. joint committee reports and objections on violations (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
11. industry objections citing prior judicial decisions (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
12. defenses on ec scrutiny and no mangrove impact (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95)
13. explanations for mangrove loss due to natural causes (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)
14. compliance with emission and effluent standards (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110)
15. crz clearance validity and high court permissions (Para 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117)
16. remediation undertakings and edc objections (Para 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124)
17. applicants' final arguments on crz prohibitions (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134)
18. tribunal review of pleadings and arguments (Para 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141)
19. waste non-hazardous; no removal required (Para 142 , 143 , 144)
20. crz activities validated by prior ecs (Para 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151)
21. conveyor belt compliant with permissions (Para 152)
22. mangrove restoration and creek plan directed (Para 153 , 154 , 155)
23. edc as csr; application disposed (Para 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160)

JUDGMENT

1. This Original Application has been filed, seeking closure of respondent No.1 - Company – Jindal Steel Works Limited, which is running its plant at village Dolvi, Taluka Pen, District Raigad, for causing pollution and damage to the environment, with immediate effect, which appears to be the main relief sought, apart from other reliefs, which are contained in prayer clauses (a) and (c) to (l), which we will narrate subsequently.

2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that respondent No.1 is manufacturing steel and various other products, having its manufacturing unit in village Dolvi. This company has one private jetty. Recently, they have expanded their manufacturing unit and have constructed a coke plant and construction of conveyer belt upto its jetty is under progress, which is being said to be constructed without any permission. The premises of respondent No.1 company is located in large area adjoining Dharamtar creek upto villages Dolvi, Kharmachela and other villages covered by mangroves, which protect the environment in the area. Dharamtar creek has covered complete one side of the plant. A large area of their plant was covered by the then existing mangroves. Respondent No.1 has also constructed a coke oven plant by destroying mangroves and the same is in operation. Respondent No.1 is also causing expansion of the jetty and using one conveyer belt. The old Google images taken from the satellite would show that the mangroves on large scale have been destroyed by respondent No.1 by the activities of its company. Their activity has also destroyed natural water/creek water/water channels. Exhibit-A (colly) are the copies of Google coloured images from the year 2010 to 2015, have been annexed to the application, showing the environmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document