Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses PIL for utilization of fly ash

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents and the industries through respondent No. 1 (The State of Chhattisgarh) and  respondent No. 2 (The Chairman Environmental Conservation)for utilization of fly ash so as to achieve the target fixed by the Government of India.

The PIL filed by  RN Gupta prayed for the following reliefs:-

1)For respondent No. 2 to ensure the compliance of provisions according to relevant acts so as to control emission of carbon and other gases and take appropriate action against the defaulters.

2)to direct respondent  to identify the patients suffering from various diseases due to pollution and take appropriate action for prevention and treatment. 

 
3)to direct respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to chalk out a long term plan to shift the industries far away from the inhabitations in phased manner after providing necessary infrastructure. 

4)A High Power Monitoring Committee should be constituted under the supervision of the High Court in order to monitor the various aspects as referred above

.
It is submitted by the Petitioner that thermal power plants in various Districts have been installed . These plants require a huge quantity of coal for production of electricity and after the coal is burnt, an 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. 
Gupta  drew 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. Gupta also submitted 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  suggests the measures to be taken by the industries for the best use of fly ash.
Raghavendra Pradhan,  Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sansthan & Others v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326, wherein the 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 Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 
He  further submitted 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. Pradhan 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 29.07.2011  which was reconstituted on 24.01.2019 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 . There is already a fly-ash utilization action plan 2018- 202 . The State is duty bound to ensure maintenance of a 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 threshold.
While endorsing the submissions made by the  Additional Advocate General, Yashkaran Singh,  counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner ought to have substantiated his prayer after placing on record empirical data with respect to any industrial settlement which needs to be relocated. The prayers made as above, are generalised and without any details and without there being any point of reference .
Pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Court, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit on 02.07.2022 indicating how and in what manner inspections were being carried out with regard to the functioning and operation of the industries/establishments and whether the measures taken by the respondent No. 2 is adequate to safeguard the environment from pollution. It is stated in the said affidavit that the respondent No. 2 has 7 regional offices at Raipur, Bilaspur, Raigarh, Bhilai, Jagdalpur, Ambikapur and Korba. They are working hard for maintain the objective to achieve a harmony between human and environment. These offices have repeatedly issued notices/letters to the industries which were found violating the environmental norms and standards and environmental compensation have also been imposed upon those industries. Among the power plants which come within the jurisdiction of the Regional Office of Raipur, almost all of them have maintained and achieved the 100% fly ash utilization target. One industry has not been able to achieve 100% utilization because it was closed/shut down during the year 2021-2022 and another plant  has been able to achieve 98.06% fly ash utilization because it was not fully functional during the COVID-19 pandemic. The remaining power plants have achieved 100% fly ash utilization.
On perusal of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu noted that  requisite steps are being taken by the State and its instrumentalities to check the menace of pollution and to ensure that fly ash is being utilized to its maximum so that least amount of waste is generated from the thermal plants. 
“Though this petition is not an adversarial litigation, but the prayers and the pleadings made in the petition are so vague and in a generalised manner that no specific direction/orders can be issued to the respondent authorities. There is no specific allegation against any industrial unit which is causing any particular kind of pollution or its existence is a threat to the public at large. The petitioner has also not pleaded as to which industrial units should be relocated. The return and the affidavit of the respondents are self-explanatory and the grievance raised herein appears to have been redressed. Even otherwise, the issues raised in this petition can very well be agitated before the appropriate forum in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sansthan & Others (supra)”, the order reads.