Advertisement
It also denounced the conduct of the Chief Environmental Officer (CEO) of the state who had granted “unauthorised permission” to run the unit “exceeding his jurisdiction and contravening the laws.” The NGT was hearing a petition against the consent provided to the unit in Samwai village of the district. The petition claimed the unit was close to homes and was the cause of “unhygienic and unsanitary living conditions”. It alleged the foul smell and emissions from the facility were causing “health hazards”.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava noted the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, who said the Consolidated Consent and Authorisation (CCA) was not provided to the unit by the competent Chief Environmental Officer (CEO) concerned.
The bench, also comprising judicial members Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, and expert member A Senthil Vel, in an order passed on October 5, said the competent authority for Agra district was CEO Pradeep Sharma, who in an order dated July 13 this year, rejected the company’s application, after noting the non-compliance with environmental norms. The company, instead of filing an appeal, decided to go for a fresh application within 14 days with another CEO Vivek Roy, who had the jurisdiction over Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida) and Greater Noida, the bench said. It said within three days Roy granted the permission on July 27, 2023. “Nothing has been pointed out to show as to how the Chief Environment Officer of circle 1 (Roy) assumed the jurisdiction and decided the subsequent application of a district not under his circle,” the bench said. Noting the response of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), the bench said Roy had acted “illegally” while passing the order granting consent. The tribunal said Roy had issued the consent order “exceeding” his jurisdiction and “contravening the laws”.
Related Articles
Advertisement
The tribunal noted the UPPCB’s response, which said a letter of explanation was issued to Roy, but the board did not receive a “satisfactory reply”.
It also noted a communication from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which underlined several “illegalities” in the CCA. “We find that the Consolidated Consent to Operate and or authorisation dated July 27, 2023, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside,” the tribunal said. “If the authorities are prima facie satisfied with misconduct, then they should not hesitate in initiating departmental action against respondent no 6 (Roy),” the tribunal added.