:1:




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
           SEAT AT JABALPUR


                  W.P. No.16970/2014


                Tirupati Kankaiya Arolu
                                  vs.
                State of M.P. and Others


Present:      Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon,J &

              Hon'ble Shri S.K.Seth,J.

--------------------------------------------------------------

     Shri     Anand     Nayak,        learned   counsel   for   the
petitioner.

     Shri     Swapnil     Ganguly,        learned    Government
Advocate for the respondent no.1/State.
     Shri     Ashish    Shroti,       learned   counsel   for   the
respondent no.2.
     Shri     Vivek    Rusia,      learned      counsel   for   the
respondent nos.3 and 4.

     Shri Sanjeev Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.

--------------------------------------------------------------

                          O R D E R

(09/09/2015) Petition claiming to be a social worker and a public spirited person has filed this writ petition and his grievance in that respondent nos.3 and 4 have installed a Electricity Power Generation Plant (Power House) near Tawa River at Sarni in District Betul :2: (M.P.) it is adjacent to various villages and for the purpose of generation of electricity hard coal is used which is supplied from the coal mines belonging to Western Coal Field Limited. It is alleged that during the process of generation of electricity coal dust (chura) rejected by the plant/machinery is dumped in a dump yard which is adjacent to Tawa Dam (Tawa River) which ultimately merges into the Naramada River near Hoshangabad (M.P.). The area is surrounded by various colonies belonging to the Electricity Board, Western Coal Field Limited and many villages. It is inhabited by the employees working for these establishment and other villages who use the water from the dam/river for drinking purpose. It is said that the coal dust (chura) which is known as mill reject coal comes into the dam/river as a result the water is polluted and it becomes unsuitable for human consumption or drinking purpose.

2. Accordingly, contending that the Authority of the State Government and the Pollution Control Board are not taking any action for preventing the aforesaid pollution being caused by the respondents to the river in question, this writ petition has been filed.

3. On notice being issued, respondent no.2, the statutory authority discharging function under the Pollution Control Act, represented by Shri Ashish Shroti have filed a detailed reply along with an inquiry report vide Annexure R-1 and from this report, it is clear that the contention of the petitioner are not correct. In the report submitted by the authorities of :3: the Pollution Control Board, it indicated that the coal dust is collected and dumped in an area which is surrounded by the thick wall there is no question of coal dust going into the river or the dam in question. Sometimes in the rainy season there may be possibility of seepage but that is not very alarming and contending that there is no pollution in the river as alleged, a report from the Central Laboratory is also field with regard to testing of the water of the river and the report indicates that no adverse material is available to say that the water is polluted. By filing a detailed documents along with Annexure/R-2. Shri Ashish Shroti points out that the contention of the petitioner that the coal dust being dumped by the respondent nos.3 and 4 is causing pollution is not correct.

4. That apart, respondent nos.3 and 4 have also filed a detailed reply and they deny the allegation made in the writ petition. On the contrary they say that initially this coal dust was being sold by auction to respondent no.5 and on a dispute between respondent nos.3 ,4 and 5, arbitration proceedings were initiated which has now been concluded. It is further stated by respondent nos.3 and 4, that as far as the coal mill reject is concerned they are proposing to use them and convert it to do carpentering work for the coal handling plant yard itself and therefore within a short period of time even this problem would be rectified.

5. Shri Anand Nayak, invites our attention to the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board and argues that in this report it is indicated that respondent nos.3 and 4 should take steps for auctioning of the coal dust which is collected so that even if there is any chances of pollution by the amalgamation of coal dust the same can be ruled out. However, Shri Vivek Rusia submits that this would not be necessary once the respondents as indicated have already initiated process for using the coal dust for carpentering purpose and various other purpose.

6. Having considered the rival contentions and on going through the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board, we are satisfied that the allegation of the petitioner with regard to pollution being caused in the river because of the coal dust being dumped is not correct. The report of the Pollution Control Board particularly the report with regard to testing of water of the river does not indicate any pollution, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner seems to be baseless. That apart, with regard to apprehension indicated by the Pollution Control Board in the matter of removal of the coal dust, in the additional submission submits by respondent nos.3 and 4 in para-12 it has been clearly indicated that the disposal of the mill reject coal sold by auctioning through contractor is now being stopped w.e.f. February, 2013 and very soon the same mill reject coal which is dumped and stocked in the Coal Handelling Plant is being used for the purpose of carpentering of the coal :5: stock yard. That apart, as huge quantity of coal is required for power generation, the mill reject coal will be mixed with superior quality of imported coal and then used.

7. Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid, we see no reason to make any further indulgence instead we observe that respondent nos.3 and 4 may proceed to utilize the coal dust as indicated by them, in the additional submission so that remotest possibility of pollution be controlled is ruled out.

With the aforesaid observations for the present, we find no case is made out for any further indulgence into the matter accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

     (Rajendra Menon)                      (S.K. Seth)
         Judge                               Judge

mn