Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has disposed of a petition seeking permanent closure of a Sponge Iron Plant following experts’ report concluding that the material dumped at designated sites was not ‘fly ash’ as claimed by petitioner NGO Goa Foundation.
The petitioners had sought for relief of permanent closure of the plant mainly on the ground that it is in breach of an undertaking submitted in a previous writ petition and the orders made thereafter.
The petitioners pointed out that even in terms of the consents issued by the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB), such fly ash was not permitted to be dumped at these designated sites; an allegation which was denied by the plant.
With the consent of the parties, the High Court had appointed the Goa Engineering College to depute a team of experts to inspect the designated sites and determine whether any fly ash was being dumped or disposed of at the designated sites.
A report titled “Report on sampling and analysis of samples extracted from Survey Nos 29/2, 36/1 and 56/1 as directed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa vide PIL Writ Petition No 38 of 2019” was prepared by a team of GEC under the leadership of the head of Civil Engineering Department.
“The report adverts to several aspects, which, at least we had not required them to advert to. However, the report in clause 4.1 (9) quite clearly states that the results analysed and the physical appearance of the sample (dark black to dark brownish-black and granular) indicate that the material is not fly ash. This is because fly ash is fine and grey-colored material. Finally, the report opines that the material disposed of or dumped at the designated site is not fly ash,” the Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice M S Jawalkar stated.
The order further stated that there is no good reason not to accept the GEC’s conclusion recorded in the report. “Suffice to record that the report prepared by the GEC now states that respondent No 6 has not disposed of or dumped fly ash at the designated sites. Therefore, there is no reason to further consider the prayer made by the petitioners in this petition,” the order stated while disposing of the petition.
It also said that the apprehension of the NGO may have been ultimately proved incorrect but the High Court cannot say that the apprehension expressed was either reckless or frivolous or malafide.
