Ludhiana: No action against units polluting Buddha Nullah, allege activists
PAC members Kuldeep Singh Khaira and Jaskirat Singh said that despite clear NGT orders directing the PPCB to ensure compliance with environmental clearance norms and stop the release of industrial waste into the Buddha Nullah, the board 'failed' to act effectively. The board not only supported the dyeing industry's shifting arguments but also deliberately delayed legal proceedings by changing lawyers and submitting misleading replies,' they said.
The PAC said, 'The dyeing industrial units initially claimed confusion over the NGT's directions. Later, they blamed the state government for failing to construct the Lower Buddha Nullah drain and finally argued that environmental clearance was not applicable to them after a 2018 central notification. They even denied the validity of the 2013 environmental clearance granted to their projects.'
Environmental activists Amandeep Singh Bains, Kapil Arora and Gurpreet Singh pointed out that Ludhiana has already been classified as a critically polluted area by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), making environmental clearance mandatory under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. They said any industrial unit operating within a 5-kilometre radius of such areas must secure environmental clearance before starting operations.
The PAC highlighted that the CETP projects had received financial grants based on environmental clearance conditions mentioned in the 2013 approvals, and over half of the construction was completed before 2018.
The NGO further alleged that on December 23, 2024, the PPCB submitted before the NGT that CETPs had complied with norms — a claim the committee called false. They said contradictory statements from the industrial units and evidence suggested otherwise, leading them to move the NGT with contempt pleas against the member secretary and chief engineer of the PPCB, as well as the directors of the 40MLD and 50MLD CETPs.
The committee also accused the PPCB of deliberately weakening legal cases. Although criminal complaints were lodged against the CETP operators, the PPCB allegedly failed to provide complete addresses in court documents, making it difficult for courts to issue summons. Even after the issue was flagged, the board took no corrective action, the PAC alleged.
The PPCB, instead of acting in public interest, is busy protecting violators, the PAC added.
When contacted, PPCB chief engineer RK Rattra refused to comment. 'The matter is already under consideration and is being heard by the National Green Tribunal . So I can't comment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
SC upholds SEIAA and SEAC's authority for project-level environmental clearances
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) will remain the competent authorities for granting environmental clearances at the project level. The apex court's ruling resolves a prolonged regulatory deadlock that had stalled over 493 real estate projects in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Pune , impacting more than 70,000 housing units, particularly within the affordable and mid-income segments. The court's intervention is expected to bring much-needed clarity to the process of obtaining environment clearances and is anticipated to restore momentum to housing construction in the region. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of a 29 January 2025 notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC). This notification provided two main things in relation to Item 8(a) [Building and Construction Projects] and 8(b) [Township Area & Development Project] of the Schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment dated 14 September 2006 ('EIA 2006 Notification'): (a) exemption of industrial sheds, schools, and educational institutions from Environmental Clearance (EC) requirements, and (b) clarification that the General Condition under the EIA 2006 Notification would not apply to such projects. Under the EIA 2006 notification, projects such as Building & Construction and Township & Area Development with more than 20,000 sq meters. Built-up area (BUA) are required to procure an EC before construction can begin. The Schedule of the EIA 2006 notification includes a General Condition (GC) mandating that if a project is within 5km of a protected area, eco-sensitive zone, or inter-state/international boundary, it becomes a category A project, subject to appraisal by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2025 notification but struck down Note 1 to Item 8(a) of the EIA 2006 Schedule, which had exempted industrial sheds, schools, and educational institutions from obtaining mandatory environmental clearances. The Court found these exemptions to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the parent notification. The SC also quashed Clause 14(a) and Appendix 16 of the 2014 and 2016 notifications that had proposed establishing an Environmental Cell under local authorities. The Court held that such provisions would cause jurisdictional overlaps and confusion, undermining the integrity of environmental appraisal processes. In its interpretation of the General Condition (GC) under the EIA 2006 Notification—which elevates certain Category B projects to Category A status if located within ecologically sensitive areas, SC reaffirmed that GC does not apply to Items 8(a) and 8(b). This settles ambiguity raised after the Kerala High Court had earlier set aside the 2014 MoEF&CC clarification on this matter in One Earth One Life v. Union of India (March 2024). Impact on real estate development The judgement brings regulatory certainty and uniformity in how environmental clearances are to be administered, particularly for projects over 20,000 sq meters built-up area, which must secure clearance before commencing construction. This decision is expected to unblock stalled housing supply, especially in regions that had been hit by inconsistent interpretations of clearance norms. Domnic Romell, president, CREDAI-MCHI, said, "We initiated this petition to bring clarity to an increasingly complex and ambiguous environmental clearance process , and we are grateful that the Supreme Court has upheld the role of SEIAA and SEAC as competent authorities." Trilegal represented CREDAI National and Godrej Properties. Samit Shukla, partner (Dispute Resolution Practice), Trilegal said, "This judgement brings much-needed clarity on the scope of environmental regulation for real estate projects. The Supreme Court's recognition that General Conditions under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to projects under Items 8(a) and 8(b) ensures regulatory certainty and paves the way for timely development." Case No.: W.P.(C) No.-000166-000166 - 2025, Vanashakti vs Union of India.
New Indian Express
17 hours ago
- New Indian Express
NGT seeks reply from state over ‘illegal' jetty in Chilika
CUTTACK: The East Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Kolkata has issued notices to multiple authorities in Odisha over alleged illegal construction of a concrete jetty in the ecologically-sensitive Chilika lake by a private company. The bench comprising Justice B Amit Sthalekar (Judicial Member) and Dr Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member), heard the petition filed by Maa Kalijaee Motor Boat Workers Union, represented by advocates Sankar Prasad Pani and Ashutosh Padhy. The petitioner society, a collective of traditional boat workers and fishermen, alleged that their community has been seeking construction of a government-sanctioned jetty to support tourism and fishing livelihoods. However, their demands were ignored while a private company began unauthorised construction of a concrete jetty on the banks of the lake at Garadwar in Khurda district . The bench observed that the matter warrants serious consideration and issued notices to the member secretaries of Odisha State Pollution Control Board, SCZMA, State Wetland Authority, chief executive of Chilika Development Authority, and the private company involved. All respondents have been directed to file counter-affidavits within four weeks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 15. According to the petition, the construction violates provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019, as the site falls under CRZ-III A and CRZ-IV B categories, both highly regulated zones with specific restrictions. The CRZ-III A refers to densely populated rural areas where no development is permitted within 50 mtr of the high tide Line. The CRZ-IV B includes tidal water bodies and associated areas extending to the low tide line on opposite banks. The petition has also sought demolition of the illegal jetty and restoration of the site, along with exemplary cost imposition on the private company for environmental violations, including discharge of untreated sewage into Chilika lake. They alleged that no clearance has been issued for the Garadwar site by the State Coastal Zone Management Authority (SCZMA). The only CRZ clearance granted to the private company was for a floating jetty in Satapada in Puri district on the opposite side of the lake.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds environment ministry notification, junks exemption clause for big projects
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the January 29 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, but struck down the contentious clause exempting certain large building and construction projects from prior environmental clearance. The Supreme Court order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis(Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times) A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held projects with a built-up area above 20,000 square meter, whether industrial, educational, or otherwise, cannot be exempted from the environment impact assessment (EIA) 2006 regime. The court clarified that the notification would also apply to Kerala. Dictating the order, the CJI said, 'It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it.' Observing the apex court had always focused on sustainable development, the CJI said, 'The court while ensuring that development is permitted has also required precaution to be taken so that least damage is caused to the environment and has even ordered costs to be paid for such development activities.' Also Read: Over 70,000 housing units stalled across MMR amid green clearance hurdle The order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis. 'If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out it will have environmental impact even if it's for industrial or educational purposes and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes,' it said. It also said that no exemption can be granted to the education sector in this regard. Also Read: Mumbai sees redevelopment projects worth ₹18,000 crore amid signs of softening sales: Here's what you need to know 'Nowadays education has also become a flourishing industry and thus no reason to exempt such projects from the 2006 notification,' the CJI said. The bench upheld the notification except clause 8 of the January 29 notification which grants exemptions to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meter. The bench said it was impractical for the MoEFCC to appraise every project nationwide, noting the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEA) could handle state-wise evaluations. On February 25, the top court stayed the notification on a PIL filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the EIA's safeguards and threatened eco-sensitive zones. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been struck down or stayed by courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court. The petition claimed that bypassing EC for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would cause irreversible damage to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle entrenched in Indian environmental law. Also Read: Over 25,000 buildings in Mumbai Metropolitan Region eligible for redevelopment with ₹30,000 cr value: CREDAI-MCHI Before the January 29 amendment, EIA 2006 required EC for all construction projects above 20,000 sq m The impugned notification raised the threshold to 150,000 sq m for certain categories and also removed 'general conditions' applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas. A follow-up office memorandum on January 30 expanded the scope of exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw material.
