Janpad Ent Nirmata Samiti Bullandshar U. P. Through Its Secretary vs. Central Pollution Control Board

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL Diary No. 18213/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-02-2021 in OA No. 1016/2019 passed by the National Green Tribunal)

NCR BRICK KILN ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

Diary No. 20331/2021 (XVII)

Diary No. 7535/2021 (XVII)

Diary No. 7667/2021 (XVII)

Diary No. 7670/2021 (XVII)

Diary No. 23486/2021 (XVII)

Date : 06-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

For parties

Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv. Mr. Subodh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv.

Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mr. S. P. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Omvir Singh Bhati, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Roonak Parekh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Mr. T. N. Saxena, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Amit, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Adv. M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh and Co., AOR Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Goel, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Shalen Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Y. D. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pushpa Kumari Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Sweety Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Pushapa Mishra, Adv. Ms. Deepika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kasana, Adv. Ms. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, Adv. Dr. S. K. Verma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Today when the matter came up, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant before the NGT, learned counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board. We have also heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

A compliance affidavit has been filed by CPCB. Therein, it is, inter alia**, stated as follows:**

The impact on air quality in terms of Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) after the starting the operation has been assessed by the CPCB using the air quality box model analysis. It is thereafter stated as follows:

• Box model has been used for estimating the Particulate Matter concentration contributed by operational brick kilns in NCR, during 15 April to 28 April 2022.
• Impact of operational brick kilns on PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels varied during this period, depending on the prevailing meteorological conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction and mixing height.
• Average PM 2.5 and PM 10 concentration in 23 grids (having brick kilns) of NCR, due to operation of brick kilns, ranged between 2-6.5 ug/m3 and 6-18 ug/m3 respectively in NCR districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, in the period from 15 April-28 April 2022.
• Overall, 14-day average contribution of brick kilns was 3.7 ug/m3 in terms of PM 2.5 concentration and 10.2 ug/m3 in terms of PM 10 concentration, with higher concentration observed in those grids having more number of brick kilns, or lying adjacent to such grids.
• In those grids where CAAQM stations are present as shown in Figure 4, average PM 2.5 and PM 10 concentration during 15 April to 25 April 2022, due to operation of brick kilns, ranged from 2.1-6.7 ug/m3 and 5.7-18.3 ug/m3 respectively, suggesting brick kilns contributing in the range of 2.6-8.1% for PM 2.5

and 3.5-9.3% for PM 10 in these grids.

Pointing this out, Shri Rohan, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that the PM is high going by the study which has been conducted. He would submit that this is largely due to the fact that the units are all functioning at the same time. He would suggest that the Court may direct the units to function in a staggered manner. He would further point out that the units, at any rate, cannot be permitted to function beyond 30th June, 2022. He would next submit that the CPCB has carried out surprise inspection in 57 units and there has been production in excess of capacity.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CPCB, would rely upon the compliance affidavit filed. It is further submitted that this Court had actually permitted operation of 1830 units and it was found that 338 units are functioning which do not fall within the four corners of the order as per the data received from the State Board. They are to be closed.

It is submitted that wherever there is any violation in any manner of the Court's order or the conditions prescribed, the units will be closed down and the State Boards must indeed ensure compliance with the same.

It is stated that random and surprise inspections of 57 units alone was possible after the passing of the order

by this Court. This is for the reason that the inspection which is result oriented does take time. As far as the State Board is concerned, learned counsel for the Haryana State Board would submit that 61 inspections have been carried out so far. There is no representation for the UP State Pollution Control Board.

We have also heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel. Mr. Gupta would agree that units which have fallen foul of the order passed by this Court or the conditions relating to capacity must indeed close down. He also does not dispute that the units cannot be permitted beyond 30th June, 2022.

Mr. S. P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing would submit that there are certain units which do not perhaps fall within 1830 units but which have the requisite sanction. Learned counsel for the CPCB would submit that it is for the said parties to approach the State Board to get the figure corrected / records updated and thereafter it is for the State Pollution Control Board to inform the CPCB. Thereafter, inspection would have to be conducted. Thereafter alone they can be permitted to operate if after inspection it is found that they can be permitted to operate.

Mr. Nidhesh Gupta also submits that that the alarm raised by Mr. Rohan as also the CPCB on the basis of the study conducted regarding the PM and which we have referred

to in our order, may be misplaced.

He would submit in this regard that the premise appears to be that the PM emission rate for each zig zag brick kiln would be 1000 kg/day as per the report of CPCB dated 06.07.2020. It is pointed out that the ground reality is that this may not be the case as was opined by Expert Committee. He would, therefore, submit that this Court may consider directing that study be conducted of the PM done after a porthole is made in the chimney and studying stack emissions with a monitoring platform. He would further submit that this study can be conducted over a period of 24 hours for an individual unit.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we would order as follows:

(1) List this case on 13th May, 2022.

(2) By the next date, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board and also UP State Pollution Control Board will file compliance affidavit indicating what all it has done in terms of the order dated 08.04.2022. It will also indicate as to what all steps it has taken by way of compliance with the communication dated 04.05.2022 issued by CPCB for closing the units which are not permitted by the order of the Court.

(3) CPCB will take up units at least three areas viz., Bhagpat (2) Gaziabad (3) Jhajjar and carry out the study as was recommended by the Expert Committee viz., by

having portholes and checking stake emissions. The study will be conducted in respect of the units which have the highest production capacity in each of those areas. CPCB will immediately intimate the units where the portholes have to be made for the purpose of carrying out the study. The report will be made available by the next date of hearing.

(4) We further direct the CPCB, Haryana State Pollution Control Board and the UP State Pollution Control Board will intensify surprise inspection so that the maximum number of surprise inspections are carried out.

(5) As soon as the CPCB intimates the State Pollution Control Boards about the units found to be in violation, the State pollution Control Board will take immediate action to close down such units.

We make it clear that the CPCB and the State Pollution Control Boards will be free to exercise all powers which are available as per law.

As regards the suggestion of Shri Rohan that interest of environment would be best subserved if there is a reduction in the production capacity of the units, CPCB will make its submission on the next date.

List the matter on 13th May, 2022.

(NIDHI AHUJA)	(RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
AR-cum-PS	BRANCH OFFICER