R.N. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, presently residing in Ambikapur, District Surguja. The present petition styled as public interest litigation petition, is filed by the petitioner, in person, seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) Mr. R.N.Gupta, petitioner, appearing in person would submit that thermal power plants in various Districts have been installed as detailed in paragraph 8.2 of the petition. These plants require huge quantity of coals for production of electricity and after the coal is burnt, enormous amount of ash is left. Burning of coal causes emission of health hazard gases like sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide etc. Various other toxic elements are generated because of the activities of the thermal power plants. Mr. Gupta would draw the attention of the Court to the gazette notification published in the year 1999 specifying the use of fly ash and mandating a target date for all thermal power plants to comply by ensuring 100% utilization. Subsequent amendments to the notification in 2003 and 2009 had fixed the deadline to be 2014. Mr. Gupta would also submit that out of approximately 55.7% fly ash utilized, 42.3% goes into cement production whereas only 0.74% is used as an additive in concrete. He would suggest the measures to be taken by the industries for the best use of fly ash, as elaborated in paragraph 8.11.

(3.) Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sansthan and Others v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the issues pertaining to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment Protection Act, 1986 is to be preferred before the National Green Tribunal as per Sec. 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed this petition in a vague manner without substantiating his contentions and pleadings. The petitioner has neither pleaded any specific instance not demonstrated as to which provision of any environmental laws have been violated except making bald statements. On the basis of vague pleadings and incomplete materials, the respondents cannot go for a roving enquiry. Mr. Pradhan would further submit that the State has constituted a State-level monitoring committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary of the Housing and Environment Department, on 29/7/2011 (Annexure R/1) which was reconstituted on 24/1/2019 (Annexure R/2) under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary of the Housing and Environment Department of the State. The Monitoring Committee is aware of the issue of utilization of the fly ash for which time to time, various directions have been issued (Annexure R/3). There is already a fly-ash utilization action plan 2018-202 (Annexure R/4). The State is duty bound to ensure maintenance of clean environment and is taking all possible measures as per the mandate of the environmental laws, rules and guidelines. The present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshhold.