The National Green Tribunal (NGT) took Suo Motu cognizance of the matter of  collapse of a NMDC mine in Kirandul, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh has resulted in death of four labourers.  

The Petition is registered suo-moto on the basis of the news item appearing in the daily newspaper dated 28.02.2024.

The names of the victims have also been disclosed but the news item does not disclose if the family members of the victims have been paid the compensation.   

The Counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh has informed the Bench that family members of each of the deceased person has been paid Rs. 10 lakhs i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs by the L&T and Rs. 5 lakhs by the NMDC.

The amount which is paid to the family members is not in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal. Tribunal by order dated 16.01.2023 in the matter of K. Saravanan vs. State of Tamilnadu, had directed that compensation be enhanced to ₹20,00,000/- in respect of each death and ₹10,00,000/- each to the injured.

The news item raises substantial issue relating to the compliance of environmental norms and violation of the provisions of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and other Scheduled enactments.   

“Power of the Tribunal to take up the matter in suo-motu exercise of power has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 897.”

Hence, the Principal Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Dr. A Senthil Vel  impleaded the following as respondents in the matter:

(1). Central Pollution Control Board through its Member Secretary. 

(2). Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Raipur, through its Member Secretary. 

(3). Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office, Raipur. 

(4). Collector and District Magistrate, Dantewada. (5). NMDC Limited, Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirandul Complex, Behind BIOP School, Kirandul-494556, District – Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 

(6). L&T Office, NMDC Works Office Complex, Behind BIOP School, Kirandul-494556, District – Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.     

Since the matter relates to the Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal , therefore, the Bench transferred the matter to the Central Zonal Bench, for appropriate further action. Office is directed by the NGT to transfer the original record to the  Central Zonal Bench  and the matter is listed on 30.05.2024.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has refused to grant a five-year extension for the registration of three specialised armoured vehicles used by the Special Protection Group (SPG) for the security of the Prime Minister of India.

The order was recently passed by the coram of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and member Dr A Senthil Vel on a miscellaneous application filed by SPG in an original application that was earlier disposed of.

Mentioning the Supreme Court directives passed on October 29, 2018, which banned plying of 10-year-old diesel vehicles in the National Capital Region (NCR), the Tribunal observed that the three SPVs, which were diesel vehicles, would be completing the period of 10 years from the date of registration in December, 2024.

Therefore, in terms of the Apex Court directions, such vehicles cannot be permitted to ply in NCR on completion of 10 years, it added.

The SPG informed the Tribunal that the vehicles, which were not easily available in the market, had in nine years covered only 6,000 km, 9,000 km, and 15,000 km respectively.

The vehicles were initially registered in December 2014, till 2029. 

However, in light of the Supreme Court’s directions in MC Mehta v. Union of India on October 29, 2018, they will stand de-registered in December 2024, upon the completion of 10 years of registration.

SPG had earlier filed an application before the NCR Transport department, seeking five-year extension for the registration of three of its specialized armored vehicles. 

The Transport Department of NCT Delhi highlighted that the NGT in the original application had prescribed 10 years as the maximum age for diesel cars to ply in Delhi. The order was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta case.

It further stated that relaxation was allowed in cases of Bharat Stage (BS) IV emission norms vehicles. However, the vehicles in question conformed to BS-III standards.

The department further questioned a notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways relied upon by the SPG, stating that it applied to states other than Delhi NCR, as it made no mention of the Supreme Court order.

The Tribunal took note of its own directives and those of the Supreme Court to conclude that there was no error in the Transport Department’s decision to refuse extension of registration.

It acknowledged the fact that the vehicles were not normally available in the market and were used very less, but refused to grant the prayer in view of the Supreme Court order.

The Gujarat High Court while opining that the petitioners should press the matter before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) , disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with regard to allotment of land within a wild life sanctuary contrary to the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 as also the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder.

The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to allotment of the land within the sanctuary by extending salt mining leases.

It has been brought before the High Court that the issue being raised herein is subject matter of consideration before the National Green Tribunal in Original Application of 2023. The National Green Tribunal has constituted a Joint Committee to submit a factual report.

It is further submitted that the report of the Joint Committee constituted by the National Green Tribunal pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2023 in Original Application of 2023 and the order dated 24.04.2023 in Original Application of 2023 has already been submitted before the National Green Tribunal.

Having perused the copy of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal dated 24.04.2023 and 19.07.2023, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee dispose of the petition with the observation that the issues raised herein can very well be taken care of by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune.

“As the matter would require a factual inquiry in our considered opinion, the appropriate course for the petitioners would be to press the matter before the National Green Tribunal. There is no need to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications for joining party do not survive and they are accordingly disposed of”, the order read.

A notice has been sent to the UP Chief Secretary, MOEF&CC, Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, DM, District Ground Water Management Council and the RWAs about the major intervention by the NGT where it has completely halted the concretization of roadsides and road berms in Noida & Greater Noida.

The order was passed by the bench comprising of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and an Expert Member, Dr. Afroz Ahmad, on the petition of environment activist Vikrant Tongad and Consultant Dermatologist, Dr. Supriya Mahajan, who had mentioned in their petition that the concretizing by the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities on the entire roadsides and green/vegetated roadberms in the two cities, is flagrant violation of the Orders of the Tribunal, the Government Orders issued by the state government and the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.

In the petition it was mentioned that the concretization of ground obstructs groundwater recharge, causes urban heat islands, creates loss of biodiversity, starts problems like urban flooding/water logging, creates loss of carbon sequestration and prevention of mitigation efforts towards curbing air pollution.

The Advocate and counsel, Akash Vashishtha, who represented the Petitioners, told the court that concretized is an open defiance of the repeated Orders of the Tribunal and that with concretization every inch of soft, vegetated roadsides and roadberms in the two cities will be affected.

“It has been the consistent and settled position that roadsides and roadberms cannot be concretized,” he submitted.

Advocate Vashishtha during the argument said that off late the alarming rise in temperature is not because of seasonal and meteorological factors alone but also because the greenery is disappearing and the grounds are concretized.

Advocate Vashishtha said due to the absence of harvesting systems, these roadsides serve as the only medium of natural groundwater recharge and those are also usurped for concretization.”

He further said “They can easily vegetate these surfaces with grass or other pollution absorbing plants. Grass releases Oxygen. The budgets are also comparably much lesser than these ecologically disastrous, unsustainable indiscriminate concretization works. There is adequate scientific material, including a US Department of Energy study that recommends shunning of this practice”.

The NGT has asked the authorities to reply to each point raised in the petition with respect to the environmental issue.

The National Green Tribunal’s Principal Bench, New Delhi has disposed of an application filed by the State of Goa seeking an extension of six months to finalize the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) by six months instead of the lapsed deadline of August 31, 2021. The state had sought extension till February 28, 2022.

The bench, comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice Brijesh Sethi and  Expert Member Nagin Nanda, noted, “There is breach of mandate of finalizing CZMP as per CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zones) Regulations, 2011 for the last 10 years, causing failure to regulate the matters as per law, to the detriment of environment. Having regard to the long delay which has already taken place, we see no justification for granting the extension sought. The State cannot go on in a leisurely manner without concern for its duty.”

The bench directed, “If CZMP is not completed even up to 31.12.2021, the concerned Secretary of State of Goa will not be entitled to salary from 01.01.2022 till the default continues.” The direction was issued in the light of an earlier direction in order dated 27.11.2019, which remains not complied with, in view of the further extensions of time granted earlier, as above.

The Original Application was filed on 19.05.2015 with the grievance that there was rampant degradation of coastal areas in the country in absence of effective regulation. Important step required for such regulation was finalization of CZMP. Vide order dated 03.05.2017, the Tribunal directed the MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) to file an affidavit as to why CZMP for different States was not being finalized.

The Tribunal also issued notice to 13 coastal States and UTs concerned. The matter was then considered on 31.05.2017 and it was noted that CZMP was required to be finalized in terms of the CRZ Regulation, 2011. It was observed that even though six years had passed after the said regulation were notified, CZMP had not been finalised. Accordingly, a direction was issued that MoEF&CC may call meeting of the concerned coastal States within two weeks to plan finalization of hazardous line as well as Notification of CZMP.

Previously on 14.11.2017, the Tribunal directed all the concerned States to state when their State Plans will be finalized by the Ministry. On 22.11.2017, time was sought to file CZMPs by different States and the Tribunal granted extension upto 30.04.2018 and further three months’ time to the MoEF&CC for approval to the fixation of hazardous line and CZMP

On 27.11.2019, the Tribunal considered the application for extension of further time with the following observations:-

“3. Even though there is no justification for further extension in view of huge unexplained delay for the last more than one and a half year after expiry of date fixed by this Tribunal, as a last resort extension is granted till 31.01.2020 subject to the condition that the concerned Secretary of the State of Goa will not be entitled to draw salary from 01.02.2020, if there is a default, till compliance.

4. We further direct that in view of huge delay having adverse consequences further steps be expedited by other concerned authorities. National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), Chennai may take further action expeditiously but within three months thereafter i.e. 30.04.2020. Thereafter, the MoEF&CC may issue necessary notification at earliest but within one month thereafter i.e. by 31.05.2020. Delay may call for coercive measure under Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Section 51 of CPC.”

Inspite of above, CZMP was not finalized. Further extension was sought by way of M.A. No. 55/2020 on the ground that delay was being caused by the NCSCM. ILNS/MS

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed a petitioner, who challenged the forest and wildlife clearances granted for the expansion of NH72 between Ganeshpur and Dehradun, to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for the same.

The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli passed the order on a petition filed by NGO Citizens for Green Doon, challenging the Stage-I forest clearances and wildlife clearances granted for the improvement, upgradation and expansion of the existing 20 km stretch of NH72A between Ganeshpur and Dehradun, adjacent to Rajaji National Park.

The apex court held that the primary challenge in this petition pertains to quashing of Forest Clearance given by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and subsequently quashing of wildlife clearance given by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

The primary prayer of quashing the forest clearance can be first dealt by moving the NGT and if the same is allowed, there won’t be any need to press the subsequent prayer of wildlife clearance, added the Court, while assuring the NGO that in case the prayer is dismissed, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Supreme Court again with regards to this issue.

Advocate Ritwick Dutta, appearing for the NGO, argued that if the court is dismissing the petition and granting liberty to move NGT, the court in the mean time should direct stay on the removal of trees. However, the bench was not inclined to issue such directions, as it was observed that the project was on halt for the past one year and the petition was filed around 4-5 months back. Since then, there has been not much movement in the area, the Court noted.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court summons senior UP bureaucrats on Municipal Corporation Tribunal appointments

The petitioner said that the proposal of NHAI for upgradation and expansion of the existing 20 km stretch of NH72A between Ganeshpur and Dehradun passes through the dense forest and wildlife rich area of Shivalik Forest Division, Uttar Pradesh, in close vicinity of the Rajaji National Park as well as the Dehradun Forest Division in Uttarakhand.

The proposal seeks to transform an existing two-lane road into a four-lane road with a 25 m carriageway and involves construction of a tunnel as well. The project involves a total diversion of 57.3278 ha of forest land, out of which 9.6224 ha falls under very high density category forest. The project if allowed would result in the felling of around 11,000 trees in an area which is not only a wildlife rich area, but also a tiger and elephant corridor and home to some of the endangered species such as Goral, King Cobra and Great Hornbill.

Also Read: Delhi High Court notice on application against LG order staying Delhi Govt’s Ghar Ghar Ration Yojna

Another grievance of the petitioner organisation was that after several contradicting surveys being executed by different agencies (Deputy Forest Conservator, Divisional Forest Officer, and Conservator of Forests-Saharanpur Circle) against the proposal of NHAI, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change recommended the project without any discussion on the serious issues arising out of the destruction of forest proposal and without recording any reasons.

Prior to the proposal being moved before the regulatory authorities, a letter had been sent by NHAI to the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) for mitigation measures for the road in question regardless, the WII submitted its report stating that the road in question passes through a wildlife rich area. However, despite recording high biodiversity in the said stretch, the WII recommended the project with mitigation measures.

Citizens for Green Doon is an organisation comprising of association of people which include doctors, engineers, businessmen, students and home makers which was founded in 2009, when there was a spurt in tree felling in the Doon valley.

The Supreme Court has stayed the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT), summoning the Commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over increasing pollution in various water bodies.

The Bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah observed on Friday that Commissioner I S Chahal need not be present in person before the tribunal, as ordered by NGT.

The apex court added that since corporation and officials are engaged in controlling the pandemic, they should be given reasonable time to file compliance. The SC further asked the NGT not to initiate coercive action against the commissioner.

However, it refused to stay the NGT proceedings in the matter of discharge of untreated sewage in sea and water bodies. On July 16, during the hearing of the case, taking note of delays in implementation of the sewage disposal plan in Mumbai, the NGT had directed Mr Chahal to appear before the tribunal in person. It had also asked the BMC why coercive action should not be taken against the Corporation for non-compliance of the tribunal’s order.

Following this, the BMC moved the SC, seeking relief against the NGT order. On Friday, the apex court directed the BMC and the municipal commissioner to submit an affidavit, indicating steps to be taken by the corporation to comply with the tribunal orders within a fortnight on sewage treatment.

Also Read: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on non-appointment of technical members in Security Appellate Tribunal

“The municipal corporation and the municipal commissioner must respond to the notice, which has been issued by the NGT. At the same time, recourse to coercive steps against the municipal commissioner is not appropriate, particularly when the official is engaged in a herculean effort to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic for protecting the residents of the metropolis. Reasonable time should be given to MCGM and the municipal commissioner to apprise the tribunal of the steps taken,” read the SC order.

The SC, however, raised concerns on sea pollution, calling it a “very serious issue” and directed the BMC to comply with the NGT orders on upgradation of sewage treatment facilities.

“The municipal corporation must, in our view, make every effort to comply with the directions of the NGT by setting up the required facilities and upgrading existing facilities,” the order stated.

Also Read: Pegasus snooping: Supreme Court adjourns case to tomorrow, says can’t compel govt to file affidavit

The NGT order to the BMC came after NGO Vanshakti had moved an execution application, seeking directions to implement the tribunal’s judgment.

“The BMC’s attempt to get a stay order on the NGT proceedings failed. The SC allowed the execution application to proceed and the municipal commissioner himself will have to satisfy the NGT that the MCGM is complying with the tribunal order,” said Stalin D, director of NGO Vanashakti.

Sea, creeks and water bodies in Mumbai are facing serious water pollution due to discharge of untreated sewage and waste. The BMC has proposed to upgrade and construct seven treatment plants across the city under the Mumbai Sewage Disposal Project (MSDP-II). However, even after 15 years since it was planned, there have not been any significant changes. Last year, the civic body was fined Rs 34 crore for polluting the sea and creeks.

The Supreme Court on July 23, 2021, dismissed an appeal challenging the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning the sale of firecrackers during Covid-19 in all cities and towns across the country with poor air quality index (AQI).

Senior Advocate PS Narasimha, who appeared for firecracker sellers/dealers, informed the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna that a total ban had been imposed on firecrackers during Covid-19. The Court clarified that the ban was in place only in places where air quality was poor and the ban was only on sales and not on manufacture. “Whatever can be controlled should be controlled,” said the Court.

Advocate Sai Deepak J, representing a seller of firecrackers, argued that as per an IIT Kanpur report, firecrackers are not even in the list of top 15 factors which contribute to air pollution. Justice Khanwilkar remarked: “Do you need IIT to understand that firecrackers impact your health? Ask someone staying in Delhi what happens during Diwali.”

While dismissing the appeals, the Court said that if air quality improves, the authorities may permit sale and use of firecrackers as per the AQI and no clarification or interference was warranted.

On December 2020, the NGT noted in its order that only green crackers would be permitted for Christmas and New Year—between 11:55 pm and 12:30 am—in areas where the AQI was in moderate or below categories. It also directed district magistrates to ensure that firecrackers are not sold and violators would have to pay compensation. The Tribunal speculated that the “right to business is not absolute. There is no right to violate air quality and noise level norms”.

The NGT was particularly concerned about the health of the elderly who were more vulnerable to breathing problems caused by smoke released from crackers that could be life-threatening during the pandemic.

On November 13, 2020, a vacation bench of the Supreme Court did not agree with the Telangana High Court’s view to completely ban the use, manufacture and sale of firecrackers in Telangana for Diwali and other festivals. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjeev Khanna modified the High Court order in line with the more “comprehensive” directions issued by NGT.

The Supreme Court on November 11, 2020, also refused to reverse a ban on sale or use of firecrackers in West Bengal during the festive month of November, saying that preservation of life should be the top priority in a country faced with a pandemic. The firecracker dealers’ association in the state had filed an appeal before the apex court challenging a Calcutta High Court order of November 5 banning the sale and use of firecrackers as a measure to curb the spread of Covid-19.

Delhi, which often chokes on pollutants from farm fires in Punjab and Haryana in the beginning of winter, and vehicular emissions, was among the first states to ban firecrackers. Last year, at least seven states and Union Territories banned crackers, with another five allowing their bursting only for a limited time.

In October 2017, the Supreme Court had banned firecrackers in Delhi. As a result of this, the industry claimed that it faced losses of Rs 1,000 crore and consequently layoffs. The Court had banned the use and sale of toxic crackers on the basis of a petition filed by two infants, a six-month-old and 14-month-old. They said the air pollution caused by various factors, especially firecrackers, had made Delhi a gas chamber. They pleaded for their right to life. The Court said that the sale of green and improved crackers would be only through licensed traders.

Firecrackers, as well as other types of explosives, are subject to various laws in many countries, although by themselves, they are not usually considered illegal material. It is usually the manufacture, sale, storage and use of firecrackers that are subject to laws, including safety requirements for manufacture and permit to sell or store.

Firecrackers are legal and anyone 18 and above can buy them without a licence. It was after 1400 CE that gunpowder started being utilised in Indian warfare. India’s first fireworks factory was established in Calcutta during the 19th century. After independence, Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu emerged as a fireworks hub.

The Global Burden of Disease Study of 2017 analysed in a report by The Lancet indicated that 76.8 percent of Indians are exposed to higher ambient particulate matter over 40 μg/m3, which is significantly above the national limit recommended by national guidelines on ambient air pollution.

Also Read: Vacancy woes in the Supreme Court

After the NGT ordered a ban in the NCR region on the sale and use of crackers in 2020, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research developed “green crackers” that used less polluting raw materials. Several states have either banned firecrackers or limited their time, noise and types that can be used. Nonetheless, many firecrackers were used to celebrate Diwali in 2020, soon after which Delhi’s air pollution was over nine times the level that the WHO considers safe.

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was passed in 1981 to regulate air pollution but has failed to reduce it because of poor enforcement of the rules. The government in 2015, together with IIT Kanpur, launched the National Air Quality Index (AQI). In 2019, India launched “The National Clean Air Programme” with a tentative national target of 20 percent to 30 percent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024, considering 2017 as the base year for comparison. In December 2019, IIT Bombay, in partnership with the McKelvey School of Engineering of Washington University, launched the Aerosol and Air Quality Research Facility to study air pollution in India.

India is still a long way off from clean air as awareness and enforcement of laws are needed.

—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal News Service