The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has sought an action taken by Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL) in the Mansa district of Punjab, including a recovery plan and an assessment of the harm to the environment caused by the non-scientific management of fly ash.
The NGT Bank, headed by its chairperson AK Goel, directed a joint committee of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPBC), the State Pollution Control Board, the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and the Mansa District Magistrate to provide the ATR.
In its order of Wednesday, the Tribunal claimed that the Nodal Agency for Enforcement would be the State PCB and added that the Joint Committee can give the unit concerned the opportunity to present its point of view, which must be independently confirmed.
It mentioned that a copy of the report should be given to Justice Jasbir Singh, former Judge of Punjab and High Court of Haryana, who has been appointed to provide information on certain environmental issues in Punjab, and that action may be considered appropriate.
The Bank also heard a petition filed by Kulwant Singh seeking orders from the TSPL to pay compensation for environmental and agricultural losses due to the unscientific management of fly ash.
On the basis of these practices, radioactive and heavy metals in coal and fly ash have contaminated the soil, apart from air pollution caused by the emissions from the coal and fly ash facility, the petitioner said.
The plea stated that the farmers and residents of the area are suffering as their agricultural crops have been adversely affected by the ash produced by the unit.
“The plant is using light diesel oil as fuel though it is designed for use of coal only. There is an excessive buildup of fly ash in the silos. The SDM assessed compensation at Rs 84,99,574 for nuisance under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is not being paid,” the plea said. The petitioner said that the victims have not even been identified.
The complaint alleged that coal with an ash content of more than 34% was used in breach of Rule 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
After hearing the submissions, the NGT claimed that it was prima facie satisfied that the application posed significant environmental concerns that need to be determined by the court.
