<p>The Supreme Court has said adherence to the environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised for factual misunderstandings or due to cryptic determination of issues.</p>.<p>The top court directed the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to determine a plea by Nainital resident Tejinder Kumar Jolly and his father against the running of two stone crushing units in a residential area. They sought directions for relocating the units alleging unbearable sufferings due to noise and air pollution.</p>.<p>"There can be no quarrel with the proposition that public interest would warrant action against polluting units. This is equally applicable to those industrial units which have been functioning since long. Orders which have direct repercussions on the right to clean environment must surely be the outcome of careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation, as per the applicable facts," a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said (sic).</p>.<p>The petitioners approached the top court, saying the NGT disposed of his application with regard to two stone crusher units functioning in violation of the statutory environmental norms, in close vicinity of their village and also near schools and colleges.</p>.<p>When petitioners first approached the NGT, a report from the pollution board and the district magistrate stated that the stone crushers were operating beyond established norms. The NGT then restricted the units to function between 7 am to 6 pm. However, this was modified to allow loading and unloading up to 8 pm. Subsequently, after a further joint inspection report, the NGT took an undertaking from the units to relocate to some other place.</p>.<p>The NGT's order was challenged before the top court, which remanded the matter back to the tribunal for passing a speaking order. After the remand, the NGT this time put the onus on the state government for closing the units if those violated norms, without dealing further with the matter.</p>.<p>The case was again brought before the top court, which noted the issue was never adjudicated on merit and never taken to its logical end despite the clear finding in the government report that the units were being operated in violation of the government policy and the environmental norms and some ameliorative steps were needed. </p>.<p>The top court said the NGT was required to address the grievance on the adverse health impacts on local populace by the stone crushers. The tribunal itself had recognised that orders were necessary to resolve the issue.<br /> </p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said adherence to the environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised for factual misunderstandings or due to cryptic determination of issues.</p>.<p>The top court directed the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to determine a plea by Nainital resident Tejinder Kumar Jolly and his father against the running of two stone crushing units in a residential area. They sought directions for relocating the units alleging unbearable sufferings due to noise and air pollution.</p>.<p>"There can be no quarrel with the proposition that public interest would warrant action against polluting units. This is equally applicable to those industrial units which have been functioning since long. Orders which have direct repercussions on the right to clean environment must surely be the outcome of careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation, as per the applicable facts," a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said (sic).</p>.<p>The petitioners approached the top court, saying the NGT disposed of his application with regard to two stone crusher units functioning in violation of the statutory environmental norms, in close vicinity of their village and also near schools and colleges.</p>.<p>When petitioners first approached the NGT, a report from the pollution board and the district magistrate stated that the stone crushers were operating beyond established norms. The NGT then restricted the units to function between 7 am to 6 pm. However, this was modified to allow loading and unloading up to 8 pm. Subsequently, after a further joint inspection report, the NGT took an undertaking from the units to relocate to some other place.</p>.<p>The NGT's order was challenged before the top court, which remanded the matter back to the tribunal for passing a speaking order. After the remand, the NGT this time put the onus on the state government for closing the units if those violated norms, without dealing further with the matter.</p>.<p>The case was again brought before the top court, which noted the issue was never adjudicated on merit and never taken to its logical end despite the clear finding in the government report that the units were being operated in violation of the government policy and the environmental norms and some ameliorative steps were needed. </p>.<p>The top court said the NGT was required to address the grievance on the adverse health impacts on local populace by the stone crushers. The tribunal itself had recognised that orders were necessary to resolve the issue.<br /> </p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
