Back
dismisses PIL against paper industry, imposes Rs 1 lakh cost
In a strong rebuke to a litigant who moved the alleging environmental violations against a paper manufacturing unit, the court dismissed the as "" and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray found that the petitioner, Satyajeet Paras Nath Rai Kumar—a businessman in manpower supply—had made "" targeting the private respondent industry. The court noted that the 's inspections consistently found the industry compliant with environmental norms, and that the petitioner's claims of inaction by authorities were false.
The Case: A 'Standalone Industry' or Part of a Bustling Industrial Belt?
The petitioner sought immediate closure of the respondent industry, alleging it caused severe air, noise, and water pollution. He claimed the unit was a standalone facility located just 100 meters from tribal homes and schools, operating without proper environmental clearances, including for a plastic waste-fired boiler.
However, the GPCB's detailed affidavit painted a different picture. It revealed that the industry is situated within an established industrial belt—adjacent to Enem Industrial Park, 400 meters from GIDC Sarigam (housing 491 industrial units), and near other large factories. Inspections conducted between and —many triggered by the petitioner's own complaints—showed the unit met ambient air quality, noise, and water standards.
Arguments: No Clearance for Plastic Waste Boiler?
The petitioner's core argument centered on the claim that the industry's , which burns 220 metric tons of non-recyclable plastic waste daily, required fresh under the . He argued that a plastic waste-fired boiler cannot be equated with a and that the GPCB's was no substitute for .
The GPCB countered by citing an Office Memorandum from the dated , which exempts captive power plants employing waste heat recovery boilers without auxiliary fuel from prior clearance. The board asserted that the industry had valid for its pulp and paper unit and that the boiler in question fell within this exemption. It also pointed to multiple inspections confirming that the unit's operations complied with prescribed limits.
Legal Analysis: with Personal Grudges
The court scrutinized the filed by the petitioner and found it failed to specifically deny the GPCB's factual assertions. Instead, the petitioner offered alternative explanations—for instance, debating the definition of an "industrial area" for noise pollution purposes—which the court deemed insufficient to rebut the board's evidence.
"The petitioner herein, who himself is a businessman engaged in manpower supply business, for some reasons best known to him, has targeted the respondent no.8 – industry by making false statements in the
,"
the court observed. It noted that the industry had planted over 15,000 trees, installed acoustic enclosures, and passed all environmental tests.
The bench concluded that the petition was not a genuine
but a weapon wielded by a "
" with personal motives.
"For the aforesaid, it is more than evident that the present petition has been filed by a person who is none other than a
and seemingly for some personal grudges against respondent no.8,"
the judgment stated.
Key Observations
-
"We do not find any substance in the submissions of the petitioner that the respondent no.8 – industry is being run without requisite permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities."
-
"All the assertions made in the
, though were found vague initially as well, but the matter being related to environment, in order to get a response from the GPCB... we required GPCB to file a detailed reply."
-
"The allegations of the petitioners against the respondent no.8 in the
... are, thus, found to be incorrect."
Court's Decision
The High Court dismissed the with a cost of ₹1,00,000 for and . The amount is to be deposited within three weeks with the Registrar General, who will transfer it to the . The funds will be used for planting trees in areas benefiting orphan and tribal children. The connected civil application for joining party was also disposed of as infructuous.
