Utkarsh Panwar v. Central Pollution Control Board

1. Question for consideration is extending applicability of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), already applicable to Fixed Chimney Bull Trench Kilns (FCBTK), to other coal fired brick kilns, including those using ‘Zig-Zag’ technology in NCR during the period the air quality is ‘severe’, having potential for adverse health effects. Further issue that has emerged is the carrying capacity of the air quality in NCR region to sustain the brick kilns. Associated issue is improving effectiveness of safeguards and the regulatory measures to minimise the impact of air pollution by operation of brick kilns, where such brick kilns are otherwise permissible. Last issue is the effect of an individual unit being compliant with the prescribed norms in absence of carrying capacity of the environment to sustain such activity and right of inter-se parity of polluting activities to operate in absence of carrying capacity.

2. As per terms of GRAP, FCBTK brick kilns stand prohibited under ‘severe’ condition of air quality by the order of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) dated 01.11.2019. The applicant herein seeks extending such prohibition to brick kilns operated by ‘Zig-Zag’ technology, which also involve coal as fuel and cause pollution load which in ‘severe’ air quality conditions becomes hazardous to health. According to the applicant, even brick kilns run by ‘Zig-Zag’ technology add to PM2.5 and contribute to the air pollution in the NCR and should not be allowed till GRAP is applicable i.e. when air quality is severe and above.

3. We Prima facie accepted the stand of the applicant by way of interim order dated 15.11.2019, which has been continued by subsequent orders, last order being dated 15.10.2020, which stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5.1.2021 in CA No. 14-16 of 2021 as follows:—

“We are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal.

The Civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, all pleas and contentions of the appellant are left open”

4. The expert Committee appointed by this Tribunal, based on which, last order dated 15.10.2020 was passed, held that during the period the air quality is ‘severe’ in NCR, there is no carrying capacity to sustain such kilns. However, the Tribunal required a report whether there are alternatives like cleaner fuel to sustain such activity which does not add to pollution load. This course was earlier adopted the Tribunal in respect of Morbi Industrial Area in Gujrat by requiring tie manufactures to close coal-based activities and operate only using PNG which order has been referred to in earlier orders. Reference was also made to earlier order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of brick kilns in Taj area. The scope of today's proceedings is not to revisit the said order but only to consider permissibility of such brick kilns in ‘severe’ condition of air quality, on switching to PNG or with other alternative, if any, by which no load of pollution is added, so as to function when air quality is severe. The details of the subject and the background follows.

5. Categories of air quality and its adverse health effect can be noticed from following tables extracted from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal v. UOI (2017) 1 SCC 412:

Table 1

AQI Associated Health Impacts Good (0-50) Minimal impact. Satisfactory (51-100) May cause minor breathing discomfort to sensitive people. Moderately polluted (101-200) May cause breathing discomfort to people with lung disease such as asthma, and discomfort to people with heart disease, children and older adults. Poor (201-300) May cause breathing discomfort to people on prolonged exposure, and discomfort to people with heart disease. Very Poor (301-400) May cause respiratory illness to the people on prolonged exposure. Effect may be more pronounced in people with lung and heart diseases. Severe May (401-500) May cause respiratory impact even on healthy people, and serious health impacts on people with lung/heart disease. The health impacts may be experienced even during light physical activity.

Table 2

AQI Category, Pollutants and Health Breakpoints AQI category (Range) PM10 24hr PM2.5 24hr NO2 24-hr O3 8hr CO 8hr (mg/m3) SO2 24hr NH3 24-hr Pb 24-hr Good (0-50) 0-50 0-30 0-40 0-50 0-1.0 0-40 0-200 0-0.5 Satisfactory (51-100) 51-100 31-60 41-80 51-100 1.1-2.0 41-80 201-400 0.5-1.0 Moderately polluted (101-200) 101-250 61-90 81-180 101-168 2.1-10 81-380 401-800 1.1-2.0 Poor (201-300) 251-350 91-120 181-280 169-208 10-17 381-800 801-1200 2.1-3.0 Very poor (301-400) 351-430 121-250 281-400 209-748* 17-34 801-1600 1200-1800 3.1-3.5 Severe (401-500) 430+ 250+ 400+ 748+ * 34+ 1600+ 1800+ 3.5+

6. During the course of consideration of the matter, in the light of the principle of ‘Sustainable Development’ of which ‘Precautionary’ principle is a part, it was found that number of brick kilns in NCR could not be unlimited and located close to each other or to the habitation or sensitive establishments like schools, hospitals, etc. This required study of the carrying capacity of different areas in the NCR in different seasons. Accordingly, such study was conducted. Table-15 appended to the CPCB report dated 06.07.2020, contains month-wise and district-wise estimation of number of brick kilns which can be operated without affecting ambient air quality as follows:

Table 15: Month-wise and District-wise estimation of the number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR districts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, without affecting ambient air quality.

S. No. Name of District Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns Month-wise No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated without affecting the ambient air quality i.e within Assimilative Carrying Capacity Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 STATE-HARYANA 1 Bhiwani 132 161 52 16 46 0 0 0 0 0 2 Faridabad (Ballabhgarh) 85 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Gurugram 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jhajjar 387 376 320 283 327 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jind 111 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Karnal 92 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 7 Mahendragarh 42 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Nuh (Mewat) 62 57 0 7 28 0 0 0 NA 0 9 Palwal 110 84 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Panipat 87 84 23 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 11 Rewari 76 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Rohtak 49 NA 31 21 12 0 0 0 0 NA 13 Sonipat 265 253 151 102 106 0 0 0 0 0 14 Charkhi Dadri 29 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

STATE-UTTAR PRADESH

S. No. Name of District Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns Month-wise No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated without affecting the ambient air quality i.e within Assimilative Carrying Capacity Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bagpat 340 300 211 165 131 0 0 0 2 0 2 Bulandshahr 200 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Gautam Budh Nagar 65 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Ghaziabad 79 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Hapur 52 30 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 6 Muzaffarnagar 146 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Meerut 70 16 5 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 8 Shamli 80 57 53 40 51 0 0 0 NA NA

STATE-RAJASTHAN

1 Alwar 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Bharatpur 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Assimilative capacity data in the CPCB report dated 06.07.2020 is given in subsequent part of this order in Tables 6 to 8 which are part of the same report.

8. The matter has been earlier considered on six occasions, last being on 15.10.2020. The Tribunal by the said order held that in ‘severe’ air quality condition coal fired brick kilns could not be operated even if run by Zig-Zag technology. It was further held that number of brick kilns even during the period when air quality was not ‘severe’ had to be in terms of the carrying capacity. It was further found that merely because there were other sources of pollution or some individual brick kilns met the standards of air quality by themselves could not be ground not to apply GRAP to the said brick kilns. The GRAP could be extended to identified sources of pollution without a right of parity with other activities causing pollution. The appeal of the brick-kiln owners against the same stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.1.2021, as already noted in para 3 above. The concluding part of the order dated 15.10.2020 is reproduced below:

“Conclusion

27. Thus, in view of report of the CPCB, at this stage it is not possible to vacate direction not to permit operation of brick kilns in NCR beyond the carrying capacity found by the CPCB. All applications of the brick kiln owners seeking rejection of CPCB report and vacation of interim order against operation of brick kilns, without air quality assimilative capacity permitting such activity will stand rejected subject to further exploring viable options, including change to clean fuel like natural gas. We are conscious that brick kilns may be necessary. Object of this order is not to stop any legitimate business activity but to enforce the right to breathe fresh air which is right to file. The source apportionment studies, placed on record, show that brick kilns contribute 5-7% PM. Air pollution Control devices to be installed by the polluting sources including the brick kilns need to comply not only the consent standards but are also the Ambient Air Quality norms and available assimilative capacity of the region. If the right to fresh air is not enforced, the consequences of brick kilns beyond carrying capacity of the air quality in the area are disastrous in terms of deaths and air borne diseases. This will be contrary to the mandate of the Constitution and the environmental law, particularly the principle of ‘Sustainable Development’. It is well established that deteriorated ambient air quality in terms of PM10 and PM2.5 affects respiratory system particularly, the lungs which may make individuals more vulnerable to get other related fatal diseases.2

28. Accordingly, we direct CPCB to constitute a Committee of five experts to suggest ways and means, if any, by which sustenance of brick kilns activities may be viable. It will be open to CPCB to nominate in-house or other Experts. The CPCB may also explore viability of PNG as replacement of coal and other best practices in terms of fuel used, at other places or in other Countries. It will be open to the brick kilns owners/associations to give any other suggestions or alternatives for consideration by CPCB in spirit of collaboration with a view to find a solution within two weeks from today. Subject to the report of the expert Committee finding it viable, possibility of permitting operation of brick kilns, having regard to the extent of pollution load and its effect on the air pollution level in NCT of Delhi may be considered. The CPCB may constitute an expert Committee within three weeks which may give its report within six weeks thereafter. Further report may be furnished in the matter before the next date by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

9. A report has been filed by the CPCB dated 8.2.2021, alongwith the report of a Committee, constituted by it, recommending operation of coal-fired brick kilns with zig-zag technology, without clean fuel or alternative by which no pollution is added. We find difficult to accept the same as it is in conflict with the order of this Tribunal dated 15.10.2020, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It fails to consider the carrying capacity to sustain any further pollution when air quality is ‘severe’. Scope of consideration See paras 27 and 28 of order dated 15.10.2020 reproduced in subsequent part of this order being confined to permissibility of brick-kilns with cleaner fuel or any other alternative which may not add to pollution load, in absence of carrying capacity to sustain further pollution load of brickkilns fired by coal, the report is of no assistance.

10. This application was first taken up on 15.11.2019. The Tribunal directed that till air quality was ‘severe’, coal fired brick kilns, even operating on zig zag technology, may not be allowed to operate in NCR. The matter has been considered subsequently on five occasions : 18.12.2019, 06.02.2020, 05.03.2020, 23.03.2020 and 15.10.2020 in the light of the carrying capacity to determine whether such brick kilns could be allowed to operate without being health hazard to the citizens. It was found that such operation was not permissible in ‘severe’ condition of air quality without compromising public health. There is no change in situation even now on this aspect. Coal as a fuel adds to air pollution and when air quality is ‘severe’ brick kilns can be allowed on replacing coal by cleaner fuel like Piped Natural Gas (PNG). This is the reason behind GRAP not permitting other coal-fired brick kilns. The logic applies to zig zag technology kilns also, though compared to FCBTK, it is better. It does not result in zero pollution during ‘severe’ conditions when any addition to pollution load is hazardous to health. Since, as per independent study, there was no carrying capacity of the air quality of the NCR Region to sustain coal-fired brick kilns during ‘severe’ conditions, using zig-zag technology, which does not eliminate pollution could not justify such brick kilns. It will suffice to reproduce the operative orders passed on five last occasions which are as follows:

A. Order dated 18.12.2019:

“4. In view of the above, while CPCB may conduct further study for assessment of different types of brick kilns with reference to source emissions from different types of fuels, having regard to the conclusion that average fugitive SPM values are almost same in FCBTK and Zig-Zag brick kilns, the interim order directing closure of brick kilns in NCR will continue till the next date. Thereafter, brick kilns in NCR may be allowed only consistent with the carrying capacity and siting criteria, subject to GRAP, consent conditions and background concentration of ambient air quality.”

B. Order dated 06.02.2020:

“3. Since brick kilns can be permitted only after ascertaining the carrying capacity as above, let a report about carrying capacity of the NCR region in above terms be furnished by CPCB before the next date by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in.”

C. Order dated 05.03.2020:

“4. In view of the above, a report has been filed by the CPCB on 04.03.2020 as follows:

“As per information provided by SPCBs, there are total 3278, 2854 and 19003 brick kilns in Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh respectively, out of which 1918, 701 and 1343 brick kilns have been converted to Zig-Zag technology. With regard to NCR regions, out of 2187, 2216 and 251 brick kilns in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan respectively, 1504, 1032 and 127 brick kilns have been converted to Zig-Zag technology.

Brick Kilns based on Zig-Zag technology using agro-residues are located only in NCR districts.

Different types of activities with potential of air pollution, including operation of brick kilns in Delhi-NCR are regulated through a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) by Environmental Pollution Control Authority. As per GRAP, Brick kilns in NCR are required to be shut under severe conditions i.e. when PM2.5 and/or PM10 concentration goes beyond 250 μg/m3 and/or 430 μg/m3 respectively.

In view of the expected higher concentration of PM emissions during winter months, brick kilns in the NCR regions were kept closed during this period as per directions of EPCA. However, now, looking into the forecast of favourable meteorological conditions and expected improvement in the air quality, Environmental Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) has directed that operation of those brick kilns in NCR districts, which have converted to Zig-zag technology, be allowed, vide letter No. EPCA-R/2020/L-09 dated February 14, 2020 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-I).

Further, air quality data of 2019 in NCR, was examined. Analysis indicated that PM2.5 concentration in summer months (March-June) is lower (Average 80 μg/m3) in comparison to winter months (Average 173 μg/m3). Similarly, PM10 concentration in summer months (March-June) is lower (Average 219 μg/m3) in comparison to winter months (Average 283 μg/m3).

The past data of 2019 w.r.t. PM10 & PM2.5 concentration in Delhi, is summarized in Table 1:

Table 1: Monthly data of CAAQMs w.r.t PM Concentration for 2019, in Delhi

Month PM2.5, μg/m3 PM10, μg/m3 January 203 322 February 122 215 March 83 184 April 83 236 May 89 247 June 63 209 July 47 143 August 35 85 September 40 98 October 128 247 November 202 312 December 209 316

Therefore, in view of submission that 65 Nos brick kilns are proposed to be monitored in both NCR and Non-NCR regions, involving total 585 stack emissions' samples, in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble NGT in the matter of O.A. No. 1016/2019 and O.A. No. 1088/2018, it is humbly prayed as under:

I. Brick Kilns based on Zig-Zag technology using agro-residues are located only in NCR districts and if these are to be monitored to assess the performance of brick kilns operating on agro-residues, under comparable situations, the Zig-Zag type brick kilns in NCR regions, which are presently dosed, may have to be made operational, to facilitate monitoring.

II. Atleast 04 months' time period may be granted to CPCB, for Monitoring of 65 brick kilns in NCR and Non-NCR regions and submission of report covering i) Impact of brick kilns operation on loss/degradation of top soil, ii) study involving Carrying Capacity Assessment of brick kilns with adequate samples in terms of number of brick kilns and days for which monitoring be conducted, iii) Evaluation of the performance of brick kilns against the background concentration and carrying capacity of the area and iv) Impact on Brick Kilns operation on ambient air, in the matters of O.A. No. 1016/2019 and O.A. No. 1088/2018, after commencement of operation of brick kilns in NCR regions.”

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the CPCB and for the brick kilns, including those who have filed applications for being implead as party in pursuance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.02.2020 in C.A. No. 1733-35/2020.

6. Learned Counsel for the CPCB submitted that having regard to the data of air quality, even though as per GRAP brick kilns are to be mandatorily shut throughout NCR only under ‘severe conditions’, no polluting activity, including brick kilns, can be permitted beyond ‘carrying capacity’ and air quality norms under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. On the other hand, the stand of the brick kilns is that unless the conditions are ‘severe’ to attract GRAP and unless prohibited by EPCA, ‘Zig-Zag’ technology brick kilns have right to operate irrespective of the air quality norms. Reliance has also been placed on norms for brick kilns under Schedule-I, Sr. No. 74 of Environment (Protection), Rules 1986. Alternatively, it is submitted that at such locations where air quality is within norms, brick kilns may be allowed. By way of example, it is stated that the ambient air quality data at Alwar, as on 18.02.2020, is within norms.

7. We do not find any merit in the contention that only in ‘severe’ conditions brick kilns can be prohibited even if the air quality is beyond permissible norms and the area has no assimilative or supportive capacity. Emission norms of individual brick kilns is not a conclusive factor for dealing with the issue, if the carrying capacity of the area does not allow the brick kilns in question. However, we do need to consider the submission that where air quality is within the norms and there is carrying capacity, brick kiln can be allowed.

8. In view of the above, it is necessary to look at the relevant data at different locations ‘24 hourly’ and ‘monthly average’ during the relevant months. Since such data is maintained by the CPCB/PCBs, the CPCB may collect such data for corresponding months of March, April, May and June in the year 2019 and furnish the same before the next date. The break-up of location of the brick kilns District-wise may also be furnished to consider as to which of the brick kilns can be allowed after verification that such brick kilns are actually working on ‘Zig-Zag’ technology, pending further assessment of the carrying capacity by the CPCB, as already directed earlier vide order dated 06.02.2020.”

D. Order dated 23.03.2020:

“6. We have considered the above data which shows that in the corresponding months when brick kilns were operating, standard of air quality was not as per prescribed norms. Thus, the air quality of the area is unable to take further pollution load. In this regard, it may be noted that while considering the issue of operation of brick kilns in non-NCR area, where GRAP was not applicable as such, in O.A. No. 1088/2018, Dinesh Chahal v. Union Of India, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2019 observed that standards of ambient air quality are required to be maintained under Section 17(g) of the Air Act, 1981:

“3. … The matter was again considered on 21.02.2019 with reference to the contention that the impugned order was only for Non-NCR to which order of CPCB or EPCA did not apply. The Tribunal held that even in Non-NCR, Standards of Ambient Air Quality laid down under Section 17(g) of the Air Act are required to be followed. If the impugned order has been passed without undertaking any study on status of ambient air quality without any carrying capacity assessment to take the additional load at concerned areas and without any safeguards on ‘Precautionary’ principle, the same may not be justifiable having regard to the acknowledged adverse impact of operation of the brick kilns on the ambient air quality. Reference was made to the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 149, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCC 422, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 378, K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 12 SCC 736 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed closure or shifting of brick kiln industries and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 235 laying down that brick kilns may be allowed to operate after studying the impact on human population and vegetation.”

7. Learned Counsel for the brick kiln operators, however, submit that prohibition on operation of brick kilns be lifted as some individual brick kilns meet the air quality emission standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and the brick kilns are not the only source of pollution. Contribution of all the brick kilns taken together, to the air pollution, was about 3%. It was also mentioned that as at present air quality norms are within limit in seven districts out of 15 districts of NCR.

8. As observed earlier, the question is not merely of an individual brick kiln not emitting pollution or the extent of contribution of the brick kilns taken separately, but of the capacity of the area being already air polluted and unable to take the load of pollution. When there is no carrying capacity in the area for further air pollution, we find it difficult to permit operation of the closed brick kilns to uphold the ‘Sustainable Development’ principle. When even without operation of the brick kilns the air quality is not within the norms, the impact of operation of the brick kilns cannot be ignored. Thus, we find it difficult to accept the submission that the individual brick kilns maintaining the prescribed standards for discharge of emissions are entitled to operate or that they be allowed to operate on the ground that pollution caused by the brick kilns is less than other pollution from other sources irrespective of carrying capacity of the area. The fact remains that brick kilns add to the air pollution and thereby affect right of citizens to breathe fresh air.

9. We may now consider another aspect of the matter i.e. impact of the brick kilns on the top soil. As noted in order dated 05.03.2020, CPCB has undertaken to look into this aspect and has not yet completed its study. As per available study, there is huge environmental cost in using top soil for making brick making.4 Reference may also be made to a study on “The Impact of Brick Kiln operation to the degradation of topsoil quality of Agricultural Land”.5 There is further issue of unutilized fly ash adversely affecting the environment which may require barring red clay brick kilns. This is proposed in a draft notification of the MoEF & CC 25.02.2019 within 300 kms of coal or lignite based thermal power plants. No doubt the said notification is only a draft but the same is evidence of such step being necessary for sustainable development.

10. Main reason for air pollution by brick kilns is use of coal etc. as fuel. The pollution can be minimized if the fuel which is currently used is considered to be replaced by cleaner fuels like PNG by appropriate modification in design not adding to the PM load. Dealing with the air pollution caused in Morby Industrial Area in Gujarat on account of coal gasifiers in tile manufacturing, the Tribunal directed closing of coal gasifier industries without prejudice to such industries switching over to non-coal gasifiers, PNG or other such technology. It was directed6:

“25. Accordingly, we allow the applications and direct the GPCB to close all coal gasifiers industries and units operating with the help of coal gasifiers without prejudice to such units switching over to non-coal gasifiers or PNG or technology consistent with the above report. The GPCB must initiate immediate steps for prosecution of the industries which have operated in violation of law and recover compensation for causing damage to the environment and public health.”

11. Issue of allowing operation of brick kilns may give rise to following questions:

(i). The use of cleaner fuels or any other alternative measures to be used to prevent air pollution.

(ii). Siting and carrying capacity.

12. In view of the fact that there is no carrying capacity of the air quality in NCR region to permit any further addition to PM load by permitting unconditional operation of brick kilns using fuel which adds to PM load and since it may be necessary to consider the issue of utilizing fly ash, we require an expert opinion on following issues:

(a) how brick kilns can be allowed in NCR without damage to the air quality;

(b) conditions subject to which it may be done;

(c) number of brick kilns to be allowed and criteria for fixing such numbers.

13. Let CPCB look into the above issues and furnish a further report within one month for further directions in the matter. The applicants are free to put forward their viewpoint before CPCB.”

E. Order dated 15.10.2020:

7. Accordingly, in above backdrop, the CPCB has given its report dated 06.07.2020. The CPCB considered suggestions/objections of the Brick Kiln Owner Association in terms of order of this Tribunal which have been summed up in the report as follows:—

“(a) The brick kilns are complying with the directions of CPCB w.r.t. shifting from the Old Fixed Chimney Bull Trench Kiln Technology to Zig-Zag Technology.

(b) The brick Kilns have been established as per siting criteria.

(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1742-43 of 2020 (Diary No. 5935/2020) vide order dated 20/02/2020 requested Hon'ble NGT to decide the O.A. No. 1016/2019, in the light of the provisions of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) of MoEF & CC and EPCA order dated 14/02/2020.

(d) The brick kilns in NCR regions are required to be closed under Severe Category (PM10 > 430 ug/m3 or PM2.5 > 250 ug/m3) under GRAP.

(e) Brick Kilns based on Zig-Zag technology are less polluting and are complying with the both existing and proposed standards for stack emissions.

(f) PNG, CNG and industrial LPG are not available in majority of places where brick kilns are situated.

(g) The blanket ban on operation of brick kiln industries has affected livelihood rights of approximately one million people in the national Capital region.

(h) The brick Kiln industries are seasonal and hence only operate from January to June and indefinite closure for the want of study would cause and has already caused irreparable damage to the brick kiln industry.

(i) Utilization of fly ash may not be treated as a true alternative unless the harmful impacts of fly ash bricks are not studied.

(j) A report on “Source Apportionment of PM2.5 and PM10 of Delhi NCR for identification of major sources” prepared by ARAI and TERI for Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi, in the year 2016, reveals that brick kiln industry contributed only about 8% to the air pollution of Delhi and NCR. It was further found that the brick kilns shifting to Zig-Zag technology would further lead to reduction of 3%, 4% and 6 % in total PM2.5, PM10 and SO2 emissions. The contribution of the brick kilns is very less in Delhi and NCR after conversion to Zig-Zag technology.

(k) The utilization of fly ash in the manufacture of bricks is not only unfeasible because of several issues involved in the transportation of fly-as to brick-kilns. It poses several health hazards to the inhabitants residing in buildings made thereof, in addition to health hazards to laborers working at brick-kilns and on construction sites.

(l) Various kinds of industrial and other activities contribute together to saturate the carrying capacity of the region. It is submitted that saturation of the carrying capacity of Delhi-NCR cannot be the basis for denying permission to brick kilns to operate. This is particularly because brick kilns emissions are not amongst the main contributors to air pollution in Delhi-NCR.

(m) Any directions that prohibit brick kilns from operating in Delhi-NCR on account of saturation of the carrying capacity, without first prohibiting the other more polluting activities, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(n) The brick kilns may be allowed to operate at par with other activities that together contribute to the carrying capacity of Delhi-NCR, subject to the conditions of the Consent to Operate and guidelines issued by the regulatory bodies so as to avoid fugitive dust emissions.

(o) The directions issued by the EPCA from time to time are sufficient to ensure that the brick kilns operate in Delhi-NCR without any damage to the air quality.

(p) The brick kilns that do not comply with the conditions of the Consent to Operate and other guidelines issued by the regulatory bodies from time to time may also be closed down with immediate effect.

(q) The brick kilns, which have adopted the zig-zag technology, may be permitted to operate in Delhi-NCR.”

8. Thereafter, the CPCB has referred to the District wise carrying capacity with reference to the monthly average of Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (CAAQMS) PM10 values in the ambient air during the months of March 2019 - June, 2019 and October 2019 - February, 2020 were analysed for NCR districts of Haryana, UP and Rajasthan. Report further refers to the statistic of zig zag type brick kilns in the NCR region and emission load by the brick kilns. With a view to calculate carrying capacity, following components were considered:—

“i. Estimation of Existing Pollution Load w.r.t

ii. Estimation of Assimilative Carrying Capacity w.r.t PM10

iii. Estimation of Supportive Carrying Capacity w.r.t PM10”

9. The data with reference to the above parameters are as follows:—

“Table 6 : Total Existing Plylio Load, Assimilative Carrying Capacity and Supportive Carrying Capacity in NCR Districts of Haryana.

Table 6(a):

S. No. Name of District Total PM10 Load, Kg (x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bhiwani 210232 367562 503745 475659 478478 457212 368260 271515 380314 2 Far id (Ballabhgarh) 96701 134048 187497 158420 104164 100606 118395 94829 112797 3 Gurugram 103785 194307 227513 191961 165102 177733 150341 102872 127176 4 Jhajjar 102704 177460 252854 209516 171112 158039 115148 93204 131063 5 Jind 174279 282559 418543 418918 307558 335718 204744 144806 199372 6 Karnal 161280 280186 355607 341349 355809 337093 233508 NA 221082 7 Mahendragarh 104445 190597 212532. 206095 174814 136050 106895 117563 127985 8 Nuh(Meyvap 80625 159404 177216 157403 134979 129861 90049 NA 119077 9 Palwal 93895 189997 204889 222688 152939 164475 111147 81141 129514 10 Panipat 65936 140221 243718 153134 236609 212180 209735 62096 184177 11 Rewari 106798 182019 248205 253637 232004 203641 153915 139921 193558 12 Rohtak NA 123118 169389 179357 169898 166483 173986 141889 NA 13 Sonipat 117771 241036 335584 332458 237579 170100 151606 263718 208357 14 CharkhiDadd NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Table 6(b):

S. No. Name of District Assimilative Carrying Capacity, Kg (y) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bhiwani 238900 287158 387496 389885 297192 239378 206887 220744 277602 2 Faridabad (Ballabhg arh) 37050 44534 60095 60466 46090 37124 32085 34234 43052 3 Gurugram 62900 75606 102024 102653 78248 63026 54471 58120 73090 4 Jhajjar 91700 110223 148737 149654 114075 91883 79412 84731 106555 6 Jind 135100 162390 219132 220483 168064 135370 116997 124832 156986 6 Karnal 126000 151452 204372 205632 156744 126252 109116 116424 146412 7 Mahendragarh 94950 114130 154009 154958 118118 95140 82227 87734 110332 8 Nuh(Mewat) 75350 90571 122218 122971 93735 75501 65253 69623 87557 9 Palwal 67550 81195 109566 110242 84032 67685 58498 62416 78493 10 Panipat 63400 76207 102835 103469 78870 63527 54904 58582 73671 11 Rewari 79700 95799 129273 130070 99147 79859 69020 73643 92611 12 Rohtak 87250 104875 141520 142392 108539 87425 75559 80619 101385 13 Sonipat 106100 127532 172094 173155 131988 106312 91883 98036 123288 14 Charkhi Dadri 69050 82998 111999 112699 85898 69188 59797 63802 80236

Table 6(c):

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg (z) i.e (y-x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bhiwani 28668 -80404 -116249 -85775 -181287 -217834 -161372 -50771 -102713 2 Faridabad (Ballabhgarh) -59651 -89514 -127402 -97954 -58074 -63482 -86309 -60595 -69744 3 Gurugram -40885 -118701 -125489 -89308 -86855 -114707 -95870 -44752 -54086 4 Jhajjar -11004 -67236 -104116 -59862 -57037 -66156 -35735 -8473 -24508 5 Jind -39179 -120169 -199410 -198435 -139493 -200348 -87747 -19973 -42386 6 Karnal -35280 -128734 -151235 -135717 -199065 -210841 -124392 NA -74670 7 Mahendragarh -9495 -76467 -58523 -51136 -56697 -40910 -24668 -29829 -17653 8 Nuh (Mewat) -5275 -68834 -54998 -34432 -41244 -54361 -24796 NA -31520 9 Palwal -26345 -108801 -95323 -112446 -68906 -96790 -52648 -18725 -51021 10 Panipat -2536 -64014 -140884 -49665 -157739 -148653 -154830 -3515 -110506 11 Rewari -27098 -86219 -118932 -123567 -132857 -123782 -84895 -66279 -100946 12 Rohtak NA -18244 -27870 -36965 -61359 -79059 -98428 -61270 NA 13 Sonipat -11671 -113504 -163489 -159303 -105591 -63787 -59724 -165682 -85069 14 Charkhi Dedri NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Table 7: Total Existing PM10 Load, Assimilative Carrying Capacity and Supportive Carrying Capacity in NCR Districts of Uttar Pradesh

Table 7(a):

S. No. Name of District Total PM10 Load, Kg (x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bagpat 106341 208801 281760 316913 187339 201855 148718 58589 161943 2 Bulandshahr 417360 604712 640366 913084 687684 655548 472794 481530 537402 3 Gautam Budh Nagar 117303 187227 227695 266759 220084 213880 189846 134448 166100 4 Ghaziabad 127332 217534 241911 315557 214135 203194 175104 124736 160290 8 Hapur 55440 97578 153620 69300 98525 96883 74017 79279 46399 6 Muzaffarnagar 304608 537164 562334 706434 501088 616458 301971 368488 421485 7 Meerut 182073 218780 277018 261278 391558 337182 289200 243545 289922 8 Shamli 81088 97476 135096 124187 113792 107556 103462 NA NA

Table 7(b):

S. No. Name of District Assimilative Carrying Capacity, Kg (y) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bagpat 66050 79392 107133 107794 82166 66182 57199 61030 76750 2 Bulandshahr 225600 271171 365923 368179 280646 226051 195370 208454 262147 3 Gautam Budh Nagar 64100 77048 103970 104611 79740 64228 55511 59228 74484 4 Ghaziabad 58950 70858 95617 96206 73334 59068 51051 54470 68500 5 Hapur 33000 39666 53526 53856 41052 33066 28578 30492 38346 6 Muzaffarnagar 200400 240881 325049 327053 249298 200801 173546 185170 232865 7 Meerut 127950 153796 207535 208814 159170 1 28206 110805 118226 148678 8 Shamli 58379 70172 94691 95275 72623 5849,6 50556 53942 67836

Table 7(c):

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg (z) i.e (y-x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Bagpat -40291 -129409 -174627 -209120 -105173 -135673 -91519 2441 -85193 2 Bulandshahr -191760 -333541 -274442 -544905 -406937 -429497 -277425 -273075 -275255 3 Gautam Budh Nagar -53203 -110179 -123725 -162147 -140343 -149652 -134336 -75220 -91616 4 Ghaziabad -68382 -146676 -146294 -219351 -140801 -144126 -124053 -70266 -91790 5 Hapur -22440 -57912 -100094 -15444 -57473 -63817 -45439 -48787 -8053 6 Muzaffarnagar -104208 -296283 -237286 -379381 -251791 -415658 -128424 -183318 -188620 7 Meerut -54123 -64984 -69483 -52463 -232388 -208976 -178396 -125319 -141244 8 Sham li -22709 -27305 -40406 -28913 -41168 -49060 -52905 NA NA

Table 8 : Total Existing Plylio Load, Assimilative Carrying Capacity and Supportive Carrying Capacity in NCR Districts of Rajasthan

Table 8(a):

S. No. Name of District Total PM10 Load, Kg (x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Alwar 574030 1052603 1291274 1053064 807916 793494 674908 669780 740055 2 Bharatpur 347021 636335 780620 636614 488413 479694 408006 404905 447389

Table 8(b):

S. No. Name of District Assimilative Carrying Capacity, Kg (y) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Alwar 419000 503638 679618 683808 521236 419838 362854 387156 486878 2 Bharatpur 253300 304467 410853 413386 315105 253807 219358 234049 294335

Table 8(c):

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg (z) i.e (y-x) Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 1 Alwar -155030 -548965 -611656 -369256 -286680 -373656 -312054 -282624 -253177 2 Bharatpur -93721 -331869 -369767 -223228 -173308 -225888 -188648 -170856 -153054

10. It was concluded from the above data that there was no supporting carrying capacity to operate brick kilns during the entire brick kilns operating season. However, with regard to Districts where supporting carrying capacity was available in particular months such number was worked out for Haryana, UP and Rajasthan as follows:—

“Table 9: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Haryana during March-June.

S. No. Name of District Load in Excess of Assimilative Carrying Capacity Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns *No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated March April May June March April May June 1 Bhiwani -28668 80404 116249 85775 132 161 52 16 46 2 Faridabad (Ballabhgarh) 59651 89514 127402 97954 85 25 -5 -42 -13 3 Gurugram 40885 118701 125489 89308 6 -35 -113 -119 -83 4 Jhajjar 11004 67236 104116 59862 387 376 320 283 327 5 Jind 39179 120169 199410 198435 111 72 -9 -88 -87 6 Kornai 35280 128734 151235 135717 92 57 -37 -59 -44 7 Mahendragarh 9495 76467 58523 51136 42 33 -34 -17 -9 8 Nuh (Mewat) 5275 68834 54998 34432 62 57 -7 7 28 6 Palwal 26345 108801 95323 112446 110 84 1 15 -2 10 Panipat 2536 64014 140884 49665 87 84 23 -54 37 11 Rewari 27098 86219 118932 123567 76 49 -10 -43 -48 12 Rohtak NA 18244 27870 36965 49 NA 31 21 12 13 Sonipat 11671 113504 163489 159303 265 253 151 102 106 14 Charkhi Dadri NA I NA I NA I NA 29 NA 1\NA NA NA

Note : CAAQMS and AOD values for Charkhi Dadri were not available;

*Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated

Table 10: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Haryana during October-February.

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns *No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated October November December January February October November December January February 1 Bhiwani -181287 -217834 -161372 -50771 -102713 132 -181 -218 -161 -51 -103 2 Faridabad (Ballabhgarh) -58074 -63482 -86309 -60595 -69744 85 -58 -63 -86 -61 -70 3 Gurugram -86855 -114707 -95870 -44752 -54086 6 -87 -115 -96 -45 -54 4 Jhajjar -57037 -66156 -35735 -8473 -24508 387 -57 -66 -36 -8 -25 5 Jind -139493 -200348 -87747 -19973 -42386 111 -139 -200 -88 -20 -42 6 Karnal -199065 -210841 -124392 NA -74670 92 -199 -211 -124 NA -75 7 Mahendragarh -56697 -40910 -24668 -29829 -17653 42 -57 -41 -25 -30 -18 8 Nuh (Mewat) -41244 -54361 -24796 NA -31520 62 -41 -54 -25 NA -32 9 Palwal -68906 -96790 -52648 -18725 -51021 110 -69 -97 -53 -19 -51 10 Panipat -157739 -148653 -154830 -3515 -110506 87 -158 -149 -155 -4 -111 11 Rewari -132857 -123782 -84895 -66279 -100946 76 -133 -124 -85 -66 -101 12 Rohtak -61359 -79059 -98428 -61270 NA 49 -61 -79 -98 -61 NA 13 Sonipat -105591 -63787 -59724 -165682 -85069 265 -106 -64 -60 -166 -85 14 Charkhi Dadri NA NA NA NA NA 29 NA NA NA NA NA

*Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated

The month-wise number of brick kilns which can be operated within the assimilative capacity during March-June and October-February are presented in Table 11 and Table 12 respectively, for NCR districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Table 11: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Uttar Pradesh during March-June.

S. No. Name of District Load in Excess of Assimilative carrying Capacity Total No of Zig Zag type Brick *No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated March April May June March April May June 1 Bagpat 40291 129409 174627 209120 340 300 211 166 131 2 Bulandshahr 191760 333641 274442 644906 200 8 -134 -74 446 3 Gautam Budh Nagar 63203 110179 123726 162147 66 12 -46 -69 -97 4 Ghaziabad 68382 146676 146294 219361 79 11 -68 -67 -140 6 Hapur 22440 67912 100094 16444 62 30 -6 -48 NA 6 Muzaffarnagar 104208 296283 237286 379381 146 42 -160 -91 -233 7 Meerut 64123 64984 69483 62463 70 16 6 1 18 8 Shamli 22709 27306 40406 28913 80 67 63 40 61

*Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated

Table 12: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Uttar Pradesh during October-February.

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns * No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated October November December January February October November December January February 1 Bagpat -105173 -135673 -91519 2441 -85193 340 -105 -136 -92 2 -85 2 Bulandshahr -406937 -429497 -277425 -273075 -275255 200 -407 -429 -277 -273 -275 3 Gautam Budh Nagar -140343 -149652 -134336 -75220 -91616 65 -140 -150 -134 -75 -92 4 Ghaziabad -140801 -144126 -124053 -70266 -91790 79 -141 -144 -124 -70 -92 5 Hapur -57473 -63817 -45439 -48787 -8053 52 -57 -64 -45 -49 -8 6 Muzaffamagar -251791 -415658 -128424 -183318 -188620 146 -252 -416 -128 -183 -189 7 Meerut -232388 -208976 -178396 -125319 -141244 70 -232 -209 -178 -125 -141 8 Shamli -41168 -49060 -52905 NA NA 80 -41 -49 -53 NA NA

*Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated

The month-wise number of brick kilns which can be operated within the assimilative capacity during March-June and October-February are presented in Table 13 and Table 14 respectively, for NCR districts of Rajasthan.

Table 13: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Rajasthan during March-June.

S. No. Name of District Load in Excess of Assimilative Carrying Capacity Total No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns *No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be operated March April May June March April May June 1 Alwar 155030 548965 611656 369256 70 -85 -479 -542 -299 2 Bharatpur 93721 318168 311467 120320 60 -34 -258 -251 -60

*Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated

Table 14: Number of brick kilns which can be operated in NCR Districts of Rajasthan during October-February.

S. No. Name of District Supportive Carrying Capacity, Kg Total No of Tag Zag type Brick *No of Zig Zag type Brick Kilns, which can be October November December January February October November December January February 1 Alwar -286680 -373656 -312054 -282624 -253177 70 -2867 -3737 -3121 -2826 -2532 2 Bharatpur -173308 -225888 -188648 -170856 -153054 60 -1733 -2259 -1886 -1709 -1531

Negative Values indicate that no brick kiln can be operated”

11. Finally, it has been concluded:—

“2.3. CPCB's Opinion:

CPCB was directed by Hon'ble NGT to give an expert opinion on the following:

(a) How brick kilns can be allowed in NCR without damage to the air quality;

(b) Conditions subject to which it may be done;

(c) Number of brick kilns to be allowed and criteria for fixing such numbers.

Following is the submission of CPCB on the above points:

i) Based on the evaluation of the data and estimation of the carrying capacity as explained in the previous section, there is no assimilative capacity available in the ambient air environment in the NCR districts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for simultaneous operation of all the existing brick kilns, even after adopting Zig-zag technology. Based on the available assimilative capacity, some brick kilns may operate.

ii) An effort was made to estimate the number of brick kilns which can be operated, within the assimilative capacity of the ambient air environment. The outcome of the month-wise and district-wise estimation w.r.t. the number of brick kilns which can be operated within the assimilative capacity without any negative effect on the ambient air is summarized in Table 15. In the districts, where ambient air quality data for the past is not available, due to non-availability of CAAQMS or AOD, the data of the districts having comparable population and geographical area, may be used for estimating the number of brick kilns which can be operated without affecting the ambient air quality, by the respective State Pollution Control Boards, while doing such exercise.

xxx ………………………….xxx………………………….xxx

iii. However, the Zig-Zag type brick kilns may be asked to comply with the proposed Particulate matter standards of 250 mg/Nm3 at 17 % 02 w.r.t. stack emissions of Particulate Matter (PM). State Pollution Control Boards may ensure operation of only permitted number of Zig-Zag type brick kilns and compliance of PM emission norms of 250 mg/Nm3 at 17 % 02.

iv. The examination of the month-wise and district-wise carrying capacity, indicates that Zig-zag type brick kilns in NCR districts should preferably be operated in summer months only, unless or until there is improvement in environmental condition through reduction in PM10 emissions by various sources which contribute towards PM10 emissions in Delhi NCR, leading to availability in the supportive carrying capacity.

The reduction in PM10 emissions by all the contributing sources of PM10 emissions in Delhi-NCR becomes more significant in view of the fact that, the findings of a study on “Source Apportionment of PM2.5 and PM10 of Delhi NCR for identification of major sources” prepared by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) for Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi, in the year 2016, indicates that that brick kiln industry contributed about 5 & 7% w.r.t. PM10 emissions in Winter and summer respectively, in ambient air of Delhi and NCR. Further reduction of 4% in total PM10 was expected after conversion to Zig-Zag technology, which has now been implemented by brick Kilns in Delhi-NCR.

v. The selection of brick kilns which can be operated, should be made in such a manner that there is distance of 500 mtr between two operational brick kilns, so as to ensure minimum localized impact on the ambient air.

vi. In the study conducted by CPCB in the matter of O.A. No. 1088 of 2018 (I.A. No. 98/2019, 100/2019, 101/2019, 119/2019 & 266/2019); Dinesh Chahal v. Union Of India, it was observed that stack emissions are three time higher during start-up of firing process, irrespective of firing technology, which lasts for around 7 days. Therefore, it is recommended that even if there is enough supportive carrying capacity to operate all the zig-zag type brick kilns in any district, the startup firing may be allowed in three batches of 33% of the total Zig-Zag type brick kilns which can be operated, with a gap of 7 days within two batches. This is to ensure that PM10 emission load in the ambient air mostly remains within assimilative carrying capacity.

vii. In view of the carrying capacity limitations simultaneous operation of all the brick kilns may not be advisable, therefore, staggered permission for operation may be given to the existing brick kilns in such a way that only estimated number of brick kilns in area operate during any given time.

viii. However, all Zig-Zag brick kilns may be considered to perform upstream activities such as green brick manufacturing, stacking of green bricks, etc. during non-firing period.

ix. In the districts, where ambient air quality data for the past is not available, due to non-availability of CAAQMS, the data of the districts having comparable population and geographical area, may be used for estimating the number of brick kilns which can be operated without affecting the ambient air quality.

x. In order to control fugitive dust emissions, adequate measures such as sprinkling of water must be taken and compliance of the conditions of the Consent to Operate/guidelines issued by concerned SPCB must be ensured.

xi. References w.r.t. use of Piped Natural Gas (PNG), as fuel in brick manufacturing are available, but in Tunnel type brick Kilns. It is, therefore, recommended that a techno-economic feasibility study may be conducted by an expert agency, for making an assessment w.r.t. use PNG and other cleaner fuels such as internal fuels, with different types of firing technologies, for making brick manufacturing sustainable and environmental friendly, at locations where such fuels are available.”

11. Considering the objections of the brick kilns owners, it was observed:—

“15. We are unable to find any substance in the objections. CPCB has duly explained that the Carrying Capacity is based on monthly average data on PM10 generated from CAAQMS and where no such data was available, Aerosol Optical Depths were extrapolated to PM. Further, carrying capacity has been assessed by taking mixing heights into consideration and comparing with identical air shed of districts geographical area and dispersion air volume conditions. With regard to emission load, the load is based on actually monitored values taking stack diameter, velocity, temperature and pressure of flue gases and standard of 250 mg/Nm3 at 17% O2. Overall fact is that entire NCR has no carrying capacity to take load of the pollution of the brick kilns as already levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeding daily/annual standards. As per Table 15 of the Report, no brick kiln has scope to operate except, some may, during March to June.

16. Other issues raised are no longer res integra and are covered against the objectors by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference may be made to some of the judgements dealing with the issue.

Supreme Court judgments dealing with Air quality of NCR, Precautionery principle, control of pollution from one source hen there are multiple sources and enforcement of environment norms where right to trade is pleaded

17. In Arjun Gopal v. UOI7, it was observed that the residents of NCR faced severe air quality standards which were worst in the World. It had serious adverse health impact. Life of citizens in NCR had been brought to virtual standstill. The Capital was smoked into an environmental emergency of unseen proportions. It will be appropriate to extract some observations from the judgment:—

“4. The onset of winter and the festival/marriage season this year, presented to the residents of NCR severe concerns regarding the air quality standards. According to reports, the air quality standards in early November of this year were the worst in the world. It is reported that the PM2.5 levels recorded were “beyond scale” values (see India's Air Quality Among World's Worst Over Diwali Weekend : Report. 4-112016, Hindustan Times). The report indicates that 24-hour average of PM2.5 levels in South Delhi in 2016 were 38% higher than on the Diwali night of 2015. The day after Diwali, these levels were twice as high as the day after Diwali in 2015, crossing 650 μg/m3, which is 26 times above the WHO's standards or levels considered safe. Shockingly, on the morning of 1-11-2016, Delhi woke up to an average PM2.5 level of over 700 μg/m3 - some of the highest levels recorded the world over and 29 times above WHO standards. The report further states that the WHO guideline for 24-hour average PM2.5 levels is 25 μg/m 3 and with an annual average PM2.5 level of 122 μg/m3, Delhi's air is the worst among global megacities with dense populations. We have particularly referred to the PM2.5 levels because of the extreme effects and near invisibility of this type of particulate matter. PM2.5 or particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), refers to tiny particles or droplets in the air that are two-and-one-half microns or less in width. It may be noted that the widths of the larger particles in the PM2.5 size range would be about thirty times smaller than that of a human hair. These particles primarily emanate from vehicle exhausts and other operations that involve the burning of fuels such as wood, heating oil or coal, and of course, use of fire crackers.

5. In India, air quality standards are measured in terms of the Air Quality Index (hereinafter “AQI”). The AQI was launched in India on 17-10-2014 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. According to the press release of the Press information Bureau of the same date, it consists of a comprehensive set of parameters to monitor and asses the air quality. The AQI considers eight pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO, O3, NH3, and Pb), and based on the levels of these pollutants six categories of AQI ranging from “Good” to “Severe” have been prescribed. The index also suggests the health effects of the pollution categorywise. The gradation of AQI and its health impact is extracted below:

Tables 1 and 2 have already been reproduced in para 1 above and are not being repeated.

xxx…………………….….xxx ……………………..…………xxx

xxx…………………….….xxx ……………………..…………xxx

6. Reports indicate that AQI in Delhi was much above the severe standard, shooting off the AQI 500 mark on many days this November. On the day after Diwali, it was more than 14 times the safe limits (see Delhi's Pollution Levels Peaks at 14-16 Times Safe Limits, 31-10-2016, The Hindu). The adverse health effects of these hazardous levels of pollution are only too evident from the table given above. We do not intend to refer to the multiplicity of reports and data on this front.

7. The hazardous levels of air pollution in the last few weeks has spared very few from its ill effects. The life of the citizens of NCR was brought to a virtual standstill, not to speak about the plight of the thousands of mute flora and fauna in NCR. Schools were declared shut, denizens of the city advised to stay indoors, construction activities stopped, power stations shut and ban imposed on burning of garbage and agricultural waste. The fall in air quality has had a significant impact on people's lifestyle as well. The rising costs to protect against air pollution are substantial. It has come to our notice that people are queuing up to purchase protective masks and air purification systems in the wake of dense smog all over the NCR. In short, the capital was “smogged” into an environmental emergency of unseen proportions.

8. The adverse effects of these extreme levels of air pollution spare no one — the young, the old, the infirm and even the future generations. A study of the data of the Global Health Depository of the World Health Organisation reveals that India has the world's highest death rate from chronic respiratory diseases and that about 1.5 million people in India die annually due to indoor and outdoor pollution (see Delhi Wakes up to an Air Pollution Problem it cannot Ignore, 15-2-2015, The New York Times). The Kolkata-based Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (CNCI), in a study commissioned and handed over to the Central Pollution Control Board, found that key indicators of respiratory health, lung function to palpitation, vision to blood pressure, of children in Delhi, between four and 17 years of age, were worse off than their counterparts elsewhere. It also found that more than 40% of the school children suffer from lung damage (see Landmark Study Lies Buried, 2-4-2015, The Indian Express). We note with apprehension that there are nascent studies that suggest that pollution can lower children's IQ, hurt their test scores and increase the risks of autism, epilepsy, diabetes and even adult-onset diseases like multiple sclerosis (see Holding Your Breath in India, 29-5-2015, The New York Times).

9. It has been brought to our notice that the severe air pollution in the NCR is leading to multiple diseases and other health related issues amongst the people. It is said that the increase in respiratory diseases like asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis, etc. is primarily attributable to the worsening air quality in the NCR. The damage being caused to people's lungs is said to be irreversible. Other health related issues like allergies, temporary deafness are also on the rise. Various experts have pointed towards multiple adverse effects of air pollution on human health like premature deaths, rise in mortality rates, palpitation, loss of vision, arthritis, heart ailments, cancer, etc.

10. When we refer to these extreme effects, we are not merely referring to the inconvenience caused to people, but to abject deprivation of a range of constitutionally embedded rights that the residents of NCR ought to have enjoyed. Needless to state, the grim situation of air quality adversely affected the right to education, work, health and ultimately, the right to life of the citizens, and this Court is constitutionally bound to address their grave concerns. May we remind ourselves, that this is not the first time that this Court was impelled into ensuring clean air for the citizens of the capital region (see M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 60], [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 589], M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 648] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 206]).”

18. In the context of banning sale of crackers having adverse impact on the air quality, it was held that even if there were several sources of pollution, a particular polluting activity could be prohibited. No equality could be pleaded in this regard. Right to trade was not absolute and could be restricted for protection of Environment which was a specific Directive Principle of State Policy enforcement of which was a reasonable restriction on fundamental right to trade. The ‘Precautionery Principle’ of environmental law allows prohibition of a polluting activity even in absence of scientific certainty. Relevant extracts are as follows:—

“37 The aforesaid findings are sufficient to negate the arguments of the opposite side that there is absence of scientific study about the adverse effect of firecrackers during Diwali. In environmental law, “precautionary principle” is one of the well-recognised principles which is followed to save the environment. It is rightly argued by the petitioners that this principle does not need exact studies/material. The very word “precautionary” indicates that such a measure is taken by way of precaution which can be resorted to even in the absence of definite studies. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647], this Court explained the principle in the following manner : (SCC pp. 658 & 660, paras 11 & 14-16)

“11. Some of the salient principles of “Sustainable Development”, as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that “the precautionary principle” and “the polluter pays principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development”. The “precautionary principle” — in the context of the municipal law — means:

(i) Environmental measures — by the State Government and the statutory authorities — must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(iii) The “onus of proof” is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.

14. In view of the abovementioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country.

15. Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary International Law there would be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the domestic law. It is almost an accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the courts of law. To support we may refer to H.R. Khanna, J.s' opinion in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521], Jolly George Varghese case [Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360] and Gramophone Co. case [Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 534 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 313].

16. The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person's right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment. …”

38. The precautionary principle accepted in the aforesaid judgment was further elaborated in A.P. Pollution Control Board case [A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718] as under : (SCC pp. 732-34, paras 31-35)

“31. The “uncertainty” of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time has led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference of 1992. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647] a three-Judge Bench of this Court referred to these changes, to the “precautionary principle” and the new concept of “burden of proof” in environmental matters. Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to the principles evolved in various international conferences and to the concept of “sustainable development”, stated that the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the special concept of onus of proof have now emerged and govern the law in our country too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes, such as the Water Act, 1974 and other statutes, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are already implied. The learned Judge declared that these principles have now become part of our law. The relevant observations in Vellore case [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647] in this behalf read as follows : (SCC p. 660, para 14)

‘14. In view of the abovementioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country.'’

The Court observed that even otherwise, the abovesaid principles are accepted as part of the customary international law and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our domestic law. In fact, on the facts of the case before this Court, it was directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

‘shall implement the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle”'’.

The learned Judges also observed that the new concept which places the burden of proof on the developer or industrialist who is proposing to alter the status quo, has also become part of our environmental law.

32. The Vellore [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647] judgment has referred to these principles briefly but, in our view, it is necessary to explain their meaning in more detail, so that courts and tribunals or environmental authorities can properly apply the said principles in the matters which come before them.

33. A basic shift in the approach to environmental protection occurred initially between 1972 and 1982. Earlier, the concept was based on the “assimilative capacity” rule as revealed from Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration of the U.N. Conference on Human Environment, 1972. The said principle assumed that science could provide policymakers with the information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature, 1982, the emphasis shifted to the “precautionary principle”, and this was reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15 which reads as follows:

‘Principle 15.—In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'’

34. In regard to the cause for the emergence of this principle, Charmian Barton, in the article earlier referred to in “The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia” [(1998) 22 Harvard Environmental Law Review 509 at p. 547] says:

‘There is nothing to prevent decision-makers from assessing the record and concluding that there is inadequate information on which to reach a determination. If it is not possible to make a decision with “some” confidence, then it makes sense to err on the side of caution and prevent activities that may cause serious or irreversible harm. An informed decision can be made at a later stage when additional data is available or resources permit further research. To ensure that greater caution is taken in environmental management, implementation of the principle through judicial and legislative means is necessary.’

In other words, the inadequacies of science is the real basis that has led to the precautionary principle of 1982. It is based on the theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm which may indeed become irreversible.

35. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by (justified) concern or risk potential. The precautionary principle was recommended by the UNEP Governing Council (1989). The Bomako Convention also lowered the threshold at which scientific evidence might require action by not referring to “serious” or “irreversible” as adjectives qualifying harm. However, summing up the legal status of the precautionary principle, one commentator characterised the principle as still “evolving” for though it is accepted as part of the international customary law, ‘the consequences of its application in any potential situation will be influenced by the circumstances of each case'’. (See First Report of Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju — Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission dated 3-4-1998, paras 61 to 72.)”

(emphasis in original)

39. In such cases which pertain to the protection of environment, thrusting of “onus of proof” on the developer/industrialist in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647] was also elaborated by the Court in the following manner : (A.P. Pollution Control Board case [A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718], SCC pp. 734-35, paras 36-38)

“36. We shall next elaborate the new concept of burden of proof referred to in Vellore case [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647] at p. 658. In that case, Kuldip Singh, J. stated as follows : (SCC p. 658, para 11)

‘(iii) The “onus of proof” is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.'’

37. It is to be noticed that while the inadequacies of science have led to the “precautionary principle”, the said “precautionary principle” in its turn, has led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed, — is placed on those who want to change the status quo (Wynne, “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning : Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm” [(1992) 2 Global Environmental Change 111 at p. 123]). This is often termed as a reversal of the burden of proof, because otherwise in environmental cases, those opposing the change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore, it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve the status quo by maintaining a less polluted state should not carry the burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden. (See James M. Olson, “Shifting the Burden of Proof : How the Common Law can Safeguard Nature and Promote an Earth Ethic” [(1990) 20 Environmental Law 891 at p. 898].) (Quoted in “The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia” [(1998) 22 Harvard Environmental Law Review 509 at p. 547] at pp. 519, 550.)

38. The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment. (See Report of Dr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission, dated 3-4-1998, Para 61.)”

(emphasis in original)

41. It may be stressed that in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647], this Court had banned the tanneries when it was found that they were causing immense damage to the environment. Thus, environment protection, which is a facet of Article 21, was given supremacy over the right to carry on business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g). We state at the cost of repetition that right to health, which is recognised as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, is a fundamental right, assumes greater importance. It is not only the petitioners and other applicants who have intervened in support of the petitioners but the issue involves millions of persons living in Delhi and NCR, whose right to health is at stake. However, for the time being, without going into this debate in greater details, our endeavour is to strive at balancing of two rights, namely, right of the petitioners under Article 21 and right of the manufacturers and traders under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

44. Applying the aforesaid principle, in the first blush it may appear that the aforesaid argument has substantial force in it. However, that would be only one side of the picture as there are two contra-arguments which are sufficient to take the sheen out of the aforesaid plea. First aspect is that the argument of economic hardship is pitched against right to health and life.

When the Court is called upon to protect the right to life, economic effect of a particular measure for the protection of such right to health will have to give way to this fundamental right. Second factor, which is equally important, is that the economic loss to the State is pitched against the economic loss in the form of cost of treatment for treating the ailments with which people suffer as a result of burning of these crackers. Health hazards in the form of various diseases that are the direct result of burning of crackers have already been noted above. It leads to asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even cognitive impairment. Some of the diseases continue on a prolonged basis. Some of these which are caused because of high level of PM2.5 are even irreversible. In such cases, patients may have to continue to get the medical treatment for much longer period and even for life. Though there are no statistics as to what would be the cost for treating such diseases which are as a direct consequence of fireworks on these occasions like Diwali, it can safely be said that this may also be substantial. It may be more than the revenue which is generated from the manufacturers of the crackers. However, we say no more for want of precise statistical data in this behalf.”

Carrying Capacity Concept

19. Carrying capacity is a facet of sustainable development. It is inherent in ‘Precautionary Principle’ as well as in ‘Inter-generational Equity’. In MC Mehta v. UOI8, construction activity in the catchment area of Badkhal were directed to be restricted/regulated to the level of Carrying capacity. It was observed that:—

“Preventive measures have to be taken keeping in view of the carrying capacity of the ecosystem operating in the environmental surroundings under consideration.”

20. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. UOI9, it was observed that quality of human life is to be improved within the carrying capacity to supporting ecosystem. Relevant extract is as follows:—

“10……. During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the international law jurists.”

21. These observations are reiterated in (2006) 6 SCC 371.10

Pollution from Brick kilns - shifting from coal to Natura gas as fuel

22. In M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Pollution) v. UOI11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pollution caused by brick kilns in Taj Trapezium area was harmful to the Taj. Brick kilns within radius of 20 km were directed to be closed/relocated and replacement of the fuel by natural gas was suggested.12

CNG replaced for diesel as fuel, closing Thermal Plant and controlling carbon emitting activities to control pollution

23. In M.C. Mehta v. UOI13 the issue for consideration was vehicular pollution on account of use of diesel considering the constitutional obligation, adverse impact of air pollution on health, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed allocation of CNG and replacement of diesel vehicles of CNG.14 In M.C. Mehta v. UOI,15 various directions were issued to deal with the adverse air quality in Delhi including phasing out of old vehicles, closing Badarpur Thermal Power Station increasing Metro frequency, stopping burning of waste, vacuum cleaning of roads.

Tribunal's Approach to the subject

24. The Tribunal has a mandate to follow these principles under Section 20 read with Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and can issue appropriate directions for enforcement of these principles, as laid down in Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation,16 and the Director General (Road Development) NHAI v. Aam Aadmi Lok Manch.17 Environmental rule of law requires strict enforcement of these principles as laid down in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union Of India .).18

25. This Tribunal in O.A. No. 681/2018, vide order dated 21.08.2020, dealt with the remedial measures for restoration of air quality in 122 Non-attainment cities, including Delhi where air quality is generally beyond norms. The Tribunal directed stopping polluting activities, including brick kilns and assessment of carrying capacity of urban areas to take policy decisions to control polluting potential activities beyond carrying capacity. The Tribunal observed:—

“3. The Tribunal noted the concern arising from such large scale air pollution which grapples the country in spite of statutory mechanism under the Air Act, directions of the CPCB under section 18(1)(b), dated 29.12.2015 and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for control of vehicular pollution 19, industrial and construction sector pollution20, power sector pollution21 and agricultural sector pollution22 and orders of this Tribunal dealing with the said issues23. The Tribunal also referred to a Comprehensive Action Plan (CAP) for air pollution control for NCR prepared in pursuance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.2.2017 by the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) in consultation with the CPCB and Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on 05.04.201724 and Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) notified by the MoEF & CC on 12.01.2017 stipulating specific steps for different levels of air quality such as improvement in emission and fuel quality and other measures for vehicles, strategies to reduce vehicle numbers, non-motorised transport network, parking policy, traffic management, closure of polluting power plants and industries including brick kilns, control of generator sets, open burning, open eateries, road dust, construction dust, etc.25

4. Implementation of prescribed norms in the light of legal provisions and court directions remains a challenge. The consequence is that India is being ranked high in terms of level of pollution compared to many other countries with enormous adverse impact on public health. Most victims are children, senior citizens and the poor.26

5. The GRAP categorises levels of pollution as severe plus, severe, very poor, moderate to poor. The action to be taken in such situations includes stopping entry of trucks, stopping construction activities, odd and even scheme of private vehicles, shutting of schools, closing of brick kilns, stone crushers, hot mix plants, power plants, intensifying public transport services, mechanized cleaning of road, and sprinkling of water, stopping the use of diesel generator sets, enhancing parking fees, etc.

6. The MoEF & CC has by various notifications put restrictions on activities in Coastal areas, Flood plains, Taj corridor Eco-sensitive zones, etc. in view of ecological sensitivity and impact of such activities on environment if such activities are carried out in unregulated areas. This needs to be extended to the NACs in view of impact on public health and environment to give effect to the ‘Precautionary’ and ‘Sustainable Development’ principles.”

7 to 13..xxx………………….xxxx……………………………….…xxx

14. According to the CPCB, draft framework has been prepared and SA study completed in four States (for 05 cities). Study was under progress in 14 States (for 54 cities), and at proposal stage in 10 States (for 37 cities). Methodology for carrying capacity has been shared with State PCBs/PCCs. Twelve (12) States/UTs have given the details of the carrying capacity and the remaining have yet to take necessary steps. CC/SA studies are pre requisite for meaningful planning to enforce environmental law. This pre-requisite should have been undertaken long ago. Air quality norms have been statutorily laid down under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and such norms are being flagrantly violated, which has been made by the Parliament a criminal offence. If the rule of law has to have meaning and guilty are to be punished, the policies of the State have to be based on scientific studies to contain polluting activities within the scope of Carrying Capacity.”

26. Dealing with the issue of air pollution in manufacture of tiles at Morbi in Gujrat, vide order dated 6.3.2019 OA 20/17 Babubhai v. GPCB, this Tribunal directed closure of industries operating with coal unless they shifted to natural gas. This was referred in the earlier order of this Tribunal in the present matter. It was further observed that while under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, GRAP was laid down providing for closing of specified activities on crossing of air quality norms as laid down in the GRAP, the same did not debar consideration of further situations requiring closure/regulation.

Conclusion

27. Thus, in view of report of the CPCB, at this stage it is not possible to vacate direction not to permit operation of brick kilns in NCR beyond the carrying capacity found by the CPCB. All applications of the brick kiln owners seeking rejection of CPCB report and vacation of interim order against operation of brick kilns, without air quality assimilative capacity permitting such activity will stand rejected subject to further exploring viable options, including change to clean fuel like natural gas. We are conscious that brick kilns may be necessary. Object of this order is not to stop any legitimate business activity but to enforce the right to breathe fresh air which is right to file. The source apportionment studies, placed on record, show that brick kilns contribute 5-7% PM. Air pollution Control devices to be installed by the polluting sources including the brick kilns need to comply not only the consent standards but are also the Ambient Air Quality norms and available assimilative capacity of the region. If the right to fresh air is not enforced, the consequences of brick kilns beyond carrying capacity of the air quality in the area are disastrous in terms of deaths and air borne diseases. This will be contrary to the mandate of the Constitution and the environmental law, particularly the principle of ‘Sustainable Development’. It is well established that deteriorated ambient air quality in terms of PM10 and PM2.5 affects respiratory system particularly, the lungs which may make individuals more vulnerable to get other related fatal diseases.27

28. Accordingly, we direct CPCB to constitute a Committee of five experts to suggest ways and means, if any, by which sustenance of brick kilns activities may be viable. It will be open to CPCB to nominate in-house or other Experts. The CPCB may also explore viability of PNG as replacement of coal and other best practices in terms of fuel used, at other places or in other Countries. It will be open to the brick kilns owners/associations to give any other suggestions or alternatives for consideration by CPCB in spirit of collaboration with a view to find a solution within two weeks from today. Subject to the report of the expert Committee finding it viable, possibility of permitting operation of brick kilns, having regard to the extent of pollution load and its effect on the air pollution level in NCT of Delhi may be considered. The CPCB may constitute an expert Committee within three weeks which may give its report within six weeks thereafter. Further report may be furnished in the matter before the next date by email at judicial-ngt@gov.in preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.”

12. As mentioned earlier, the CPCB has filed its further report dated 08.02.2021, stating that it constituted a five-member Committee of following members:—

• Mr. Mohan A Patil, Senior Director, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), New Delhi

• Dr. Sameer Maithel, Director, Greentech Knowledge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (GKSPL), New Delhi

• Dr. Neeraj Jain, Principal Scientist, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee

• Er Pritpal Singh, Additional Director, Punjab State Council for Science and Technology (PSCST), Chandigarh

• Dr. Narender Sharma, Scientist ‘E’, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

13. The Committee was to suggest ways and means to sustain brick kilns activities. However, in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 15.10.2020, paras 27 and 28, the scope of the Committee was limited to examine ways and means for sustainability of brick kilns activities either by replacing the fuel or any other such alternatives as enable pollution free brick kiln activities in ‘severe’ conditions. It seems the Committee has misunderstood its mandate and, on suggestion of brick kilns, made recommendations without concern for the pollution load which air quality during ‘severe’ condition cannot take. Its suggestions of improving monitoring and operation procedures is not enough to accept that in practical terms, there will be no pollution load. Such measures may be at best helpful only where air quality is not ‘severe’ and only issue is mitigating measures. The summary of observations and recommendations of the Committee are as follows:—

“2.2 Preventing/Reducing Air Pollution Generation at Source in Existing zigzag kilns

Adoption of Standard operating practices for zig-zag kiln operation: Representations by brick kiln associations and presentations made by them during the January 4, 2021 meeting, revealed that a large number of brick kilns which have recently converted from FCBTK to zig-zag kiln technology, are not familiar with the standard operating practices and also face a problem of nonavailability of trained workers (firemen and brick setters) to operate zig-zag kilns. Sample surveys and performance measurements conducted immediately after conversion from FCBTK to zig-zag kilns carried out in Bihar28 & NCR29 corroborate the fact that all newly converted zig-zag kilns may not be following standard operating practices resulting in them not being able to achieve the desired level of performance with respect to reduced air pollution, fuel savings and improved quality of fired bricks. The Expert Committee has compiled the Standard Operating Practices, and are presented in Annexure-4 which covers the following aspects:

• Stacking of bricks in a zig-zag kiln

• Fuel preparation and fuel feeding practices in a zig-zag kiln

• Air leakage management in a zig-zag kiln

• Temp. measurement & instrumentation to control the operation of a zig-zag kiln

• Air flow and draught control in a zig-zag kiln.

The expert committee also deliberated on various measures as elaborated in Annexure-5, to improve the combustion of fuel and thus reduction in source emissions:

i. Optimising Combustion & Minimising Air Leakages by Using Instrumentation and Process Control System.

ii. Increasing Settling of Dust in Flue Ducts (in-built Settling Chamber) by reducing Air Leakages.

iii. Use of Internal Fuel.

iv. Use of mechanized fuel feeding devices.

2.3. Preventing/Reducing Air Pollution Generation at Source by Change of Brick Kiln Technology and/or shift to cleaner gaseous fuels Tunnel Kiln Technology: Tunnel kiln is a continuous moving ware kiln in which the bricks are passed on cars through a long horizontal tunnel. The firing of products occurs at the central part of the tunnel. The main advantages of tunnel kiln technology lie in its ability to fire a wide variety of clay products, better control over the combustion/firing process and high quality of the products. Due to the better control over the combustion process, the emission of particulate matter in stack gas is lower in tunnel kilns. After Second World War, the technology was widely adopted and lead to the transformation of European brick industry from several thousand small and scattered brick making units into few hundred large scale and highly mechanised tunnel kiln units. In Asia, China and Vietnam started adopting the technology during 1970's and now have several hundred tunnel kilns in operation. Depending on its design and construction a tunnel kiln to manufacture around 50,000 bricks per day can cost anywhere between Rs. 7-15 crore in India. As per information available with the Expert Committee there are only 1-2 operating tunnel kilns in the NCR which are mainly producing Value Added Products.

PNG/CNG: Gaseous fuels like piped natural gas, compressed natural gas or biogas are cleaner fuels which results in less air pollution as well as they also help in reducing CO2 emissions. Recently, Wienerberger India (a large international company involved in manufacturing of bricks), has converted their existing tunnel kiln located at Kunigal, Karnataka to natural gas firing. CPCB was also directed by Hon'ble NGT to look into alternate fuels such as PNG. In this regard, CPCB Regional Directorate, Bangalore was requested to study and conduct in depth monitoring of a PNG based brick kiln namely M/s Weinberger Building Material Solutions operating at Plot No. 1 & 2, Kunigal Industrial Area, Phase II, Gottigere Village, Kunigal, Karnataka. The study has been conducted by CPCB RD, Bangalore on 22-23 December, 2020 and the report is enclosed as Annexure-6. The techno-economics of supply of natural gas for brick firing will require a detailed study.

Air Pollution Control Devices (End-of-the Pipe Technologies):

The Expert Committee is of the view that zig-zag technology itself is adequate to achieve the existing and proposed norms prescribed for brick kilns, if operated as per design parameters.

Further, the technology selection for an air pollution control device depends on characteristics of the pollutant(s) i.e. particle size, particle loading, required pollutant(s) removal efficiencies and flue gas properties like pressure, temperature, humidity, composition, reactivity etc. The various types of Air Pollution Control Devices (APCD) and their applications are tabulated as Annexure-7.

2.4. Applied research/pilot testing for improvement in brick manufacturing process

Based on the discussions presented above, various suggestions have been made by the Expert Committee as elaborated in Annexure-8, for undertaking applied research to demonstrate and pilot test technical measures to improve brick manufacturing process and to reduce air pollution/improve resource efficiency.

3. Summary of Observations:

The Expert Committee was directed by Hon'ble NGT, to suggest ways and means, if any, by which sustenance of brick kilns activities, may be viable. The summary of observations and analysis made by the Expert Committee in Section 2, so as to ensure environmentally sustainable and financially viable operation of brick kilns which have already been converted to zig-zag technology, in NCR districts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan is as follows:

a) As per data available as on 16.12.2020 with CPCB based on the information received from respective SPCBs, out of total 4635 Nos. brick kilns in NCR, 2697 Nos. brick kilns (Uttar Pradesh : 1024 Nos.; Haryana : 1543 Nos. and Rajasthan : 216 Nos.) have been converted to Zig-zag technology, as on date (Table 1).

Table 1: Conversion status of brick kilns from Fixed Chimney Bull Trench Kiln (FCBTK) technology to Zig-zag technology in NCR Regions

S. No. Name of State No. of Total no. of brick kilns Total Brick Kilns converted into Zig-Zag Technology 1 Uttar Pradesh 2216 1024 2 Haryana 2163 1543 3 Rajasthan 255 216 TOTAL 4634 2783

b) The zig-zag kiln technology, if operated as per standard operating practices, are adequate to achieve both the existing norms of 750 mg/Nm3 SPM and the proposed stricter norms of 250 mg/Nm3 at 17% oxygen concentration (as per the draft notification of MoEF & CC vide No. GSR 233 (E) dated 15/3/2018).

c) Several additional measures for incremental improvements undertaken to further reduce stack emission generation at source from can be existing zig-zag kilns as well as improve resource use efficiency so as to further reduce the environment footprint of the brick industry. These include, optimizing combustion & minimizing air leakages by using instrumentation and process control system; increasing settling of dust in flue ducts (in-built Settling Chamber) by reducing air leakages; use of VFDs for air flow and draught control; addition of internal fuel etc. These measures require further applied research/pilot demonstration, as elaborated in Annexure-5 and Annexure-8 of the report, before they can be recommended for large-scale implementation.

d) As such, implementation of additional Air Pollution Control Devices (APCDs) are not required in zig-zag technology to meet the existing and proposed norm if operated as per design parameters as well as standard operating procedures. However, for further reduction in stack emission with special reference to reduce PM 10 and PM2.5, suitable APCD may be designed and piloted.

e) Regarding the use of PNG/CNG in brick kilns, there is only one reference of PNG based brick kiln in India i.e. M/s Weinberger Building Material Solutions operating at Village Kunigal, Karnataka installed at a cost of Rs. 150 Crores, using tunnel kiln technology, for producing hollow blocks. The Expert Committee is of the opinion that the conversion of Zig-zag kilns into PNG/CNG based tunnel kilns does not seem to be a viable option, at this stage.

f) The measurement of stack emissions at 8D (Where D is the internal diameter of the chimney) level, as specified in USEPA/CPCB method may not be feasible in some brick kilns having large diameters. CPCB should relook into the current methodology of stack emission monitoring in brick kilns and come out with a guideline on how to conduct stack emission monitoring in zig-zag brick kilns. Such a guideline and subsequent monitoring using these guidelines are important to reassess/revalidate the emission load and contribution of particulate matter emissions by zig-zag brick kilns in ambient air environment.

4. Recommendations of Expert Committee

The following mechanism is recommended by the Expert Committee, for operationalization of zig-zag type brick kilns in NCR regions:

i. The brick kilns which have already been converted to Zig-zag technology may only be allowed to operate, subject to the compliance of all the applicable environmental notifications, sitting guidelines, conditions of the consent to operate granted by respective State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) with special reference to control of fugitive dust emissions.

ii. The new brick kilns be allowed to operate in NCR regions, as per directions issued by CPCB vide CPCB/IPC I-VI/PNG/2862-2870 dated November 27, 2020 (Copy attached as Annexure-10).

iii. The permission to operate the brick kilns in the winter months must be subjected to the restrictions, if any, on the operation of industries, to control the concentration of particulate matter in the ambient air environment of Delhi NCR

iv. The CPCB in consultation with expert agencies/organisations should develop methodology for conducting stack emission monitoring in zig-zag brick kilns at monitoring the earliest. All brick kilns would be required to provide port holes and platform and ladders as finalized by CPCB.

v. It is recommended that training programmes on standard operating practices may be organized by various brick kiln associations in collaboration with expert agencies in this field. CPCB may provide technical guidance to the brick kilns associations in this regard, if required. An outline of the training programme is provided in Annexure-9.

vi. It is recommended to implement the following additional measures:

• One night-vision CCTV camera to be installed and focused on the exit of brick kilns stack with connectivity to SPCBs & CPCB, to ensure visual monitoring of smoke emissions.

• Requisite number of ambient air quality monitoring stations (AAQMS) should be installed by State Pollution Control Boards in all the districts in accordance with the criteria developed by CPCB.

vii. The long term sustenance of the brick kilns in NCR depends on implementation of measures to further improve design and operation of existing zigzag kilns for pollution prevention at source and improve resource use efficiency.

The committee has given suggestions, based on which applied research and pilot demonstration can be taken up besides developing a Roadmap for time bound implementation.”

14. The report also annexes a study of Tunnel kiln technology, using PNG as fuel, employed by M/s Wienerberger Building Solutions Private Limited, KIADB Industrial Area, Kunigal, Karnataka, (which has not been found viable by the Committee), as follows:—

“5.0 Plant Description:

M/s Wienerberger Building Materials Solutions Private Limited, a Brick Manufacturer founded in 1819 in Vienna, Austria, is having 204 plants spread across 30 countries, is engaged in using natural, eco-friendly building material of international quality standards. The unit located in Plot No. 1 & 2, Kunigal Industrial Area, Phase II, Gottikere Village, Kunigal, Karnataka has Tunnel kiln, a continuous moving ware kiln technology. Wienerberger at Kunigal is the production facility, 70 kms from Bangalore, is Austria-based Wienerberger's first Asian manufacturing unit. The fully automated, state-of-the-art facility manufactures bricks called porotherm perforated clay bricks. The environment friendly production unit runs 365 days a year, producing 450 tonnes of bricks per day. Quality is ensured by the latest European production equipments 24 hour factory production control with in-house laboratory for chemical and physical tests of raw materials and finished products. The unit makes different types of horizontal and vertical perforated light weight clay bricks. The porotherm horizontally perforated light weight clay bricks has following advantages:

• Weighs 60 % less than conventional walling material

• Compressive strength ≥3.5 N/mm2

• Density of approx. 700-800kg/m3

• Conveniently large and light weight bricks

• Excellent thermal insulation

• Low water absorption ˜ 15%

Brick is a 100 % natural clay product with natural additives like coal ash, rice husk and granites slurry. No toxic or any chemical additives are used, thereby free from toxic gases.”

15. The report also refers to direction issued by the CPCB on 27.11.2020 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for upcoming industrial units in NCR to use only gas and also refers to an earlier order requiring even the existing industries in NCR Delhi, to shift to PNG by 31.03.2019 where gas supply is available. The relevant part of the order is quoted below:—

“xx xx xx xx xx

Whereas, considering the Considering deteriorating air quality in NCR-Delhi and also the fact that already directions have been issued to all the existing industries in NCR-Delhi to switch over to cleaner fuels, it is decided that only those new industrial units shall be allowed to set-up in NCR-Delhi, which use cleaner fuels namely, natural gas (PNG/CNG), liquefied petroleum gas, bio gas, propane, butane etc. and

Now therefore, in view of the above and exercising the powers conferred under section 8(1)(b) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, you are hereby directed to allow only those new industrial units in NCR-Delhi, which are using cleaner fuels, namely, natural gas (PNG/CNG), liquefied petroleum gas, bio-gas, propane, butane etc.”

16. We have heard Counsel for the brick kiln operators at great length and also perused the written submissions filed by them but their effort being to revisit the earlier order against which their appeal stands dismissed, we do not find any reason to pass any different order. As already observed in the beginning of this order, the data in Table 15 in the CPCB report shows that in severe air quality condition, coal fired brick kilns using zig zag technology are not sustainable in view of carrying capacity of the region. Only from March to June, limited number of brick kilns operated by zig zag technology can be permitted. Thus, unless there is change to cleaner fuel (PNG), brick kilns beyond the capacity shown by Table 15 above cannot be allowed.

17. There is variance of figures of brick kilns permissible during March to June within the carrying capacity. Nature of brick kiln activity being continuous, only such number can be allowed which can be sustained throughout the said period i.e. the minimum figure of a particular month out of the four months, which comes to 444 in Haryana (in the month of May) and 200 in UP (in the month of June). Thus, only this number can be allowed for the time being during the period air quality is not severe. Shortlisting for the purpose may be done applying a suitable siting criteria taking into account inter-se distance, distance from sensitive locations and compliance of consent conditions. Further, location of brick kilns be scattered on pro-rata basis, in different directions of the area, having regard to background and carrying capacity parameters. On that broad basis, selection criteria be worked out by a joint Committee of CPCB and State PCBs. Those brick kilns which switch over to PNG will be entitled to operate even beyond months of March to June and even beyond the number of brick kilns on Zig-Zag technology within the carrying capacity. This can be revisited if air quality improves or if carrying capacity increased as a result of measures adopted by the State authorities in future, by reducing pollution load from different sources.

18. The Tunnel kiln technology with PNG can be followed, if viable, on which it may be permissible for the brick kilns to function even in severe conditions for existing or new brick kilns. The direction dated 27.11.2020 by CPCB also shows the need for reducing pollution load and not to allow activities by using coal.

19. As mentioned earlier, the recommendation that the brick kilns can be allowed with effective monitoring appears to be hypothetical in view of monitoring having been found to be hardly effective, on performance audit of PCBs, as will be shown in later part of this para. While in absence of carrying capacity, brick kilns are not permissible in ‘severe’ air quality situation, need for improving monitoring and minimising pollution is undisputed. In this regard, matter has been considered by this Tribunal in OA 95/2018, Aryavart Foundation v. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. vide order dated 05.02.2021, and in the light of report of performance audit of State PCBs, it has been found that performance is inadequate in terms of staff, equipment and functioning. Similar situation has been found in OA 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Vide order dated 01.02.2021, in relation to monitoring of EC conditions by the MoEF & CC. We have recently come across several cases of industrial accidents i. Order dated 01.06.2020, relating to incident of gas leak dated 07.05.2020 in LG Polymers India Pvt. Limited at Vishakhapatnam, apart from other damage (OA No. 73/2020, ii. Order dated 03.02.2021, relating to incident dated 03.06.2020 in a chemical factory, Gujarat resulting in deaths and injuries and other damage (OA No. 85/2020) (Earlier OA 22/2020) (WZ), iii. Order dated 06.08.2020, in relation to incident of oil well blow out on 27.05.2020 at Baghjan in the Tinsukia District of Assam resulting in deaths, injuries and damage to the environment (OA No. 43/2020(EZ), relating to incident dated 30.06.2020 on account of gas leakage at Sainor Life Sciences factory at Parawada in industrial area on the outskirts of Vishakhapatnam (OA No. 106/2020, News item published in the local daily “Economic Times” dated 30.06.2020 titled “Another Gas Leakage at Vizag Factory kills two, dealing with the incident dated 01.07.2020 resulting in death of 6 person and injury to 17 due to blast of boiler in M/s Neyveli Thermal Power Station (NLCIL), Cuddalore (OA No. 108/2020, News item published in the “Indian Express” dated 01.07.2020 titled “Tamil Nadu Neyveli boiler blast , vi. Orders dated 23.07.2020 and 22.12.2020, Vizag on 13.07.2020 at Ramky CETP Solvents building in Pharma City resulting in injuries (OA No. 134/2020, News item published on 13.07.2020 in the local daily named “India Today” titled “Massive fire engulf Vizag chemical plant, injuries reported”).vii. Order dated 18.12.2020, in relation to incident of explosion in a plastic recycling factory at Sujapur in Malda on 1.12.2020 resulting in death of six persons, including two minors and serious injuries to four persons (OA No. 272/2020, News item published in the “Times of India” dated 20.11.2020 entitled “Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory”).viii. Order dated 18.12.2020, Maharashtra on 21.11.2020 resulting in deaths and injuries and other damage (OA No. 274/2020, News item published in the “Indian Express” dated 23.11.2020 entitled “Maharashtra , eight injured in methane gas leak in sugar factory”).ix. Order dated 08.01.2021, in relation to Gas Leak in Agro Company (O.A No. 107/2020, News item published in the local daily “Indian Express Sunday Express” dated 28.06.2020 titled “Gas Leak in Agro Company Claims life of one”)x. Order dated 18.01.2021, in relation to News item published in Navbharat Times dated 24.12.2020 titled “Gas leaks in IFFCO Plant, 2 Officers dead” (O.A No. 04/2020, News item published in Navbharat Times dated 24.12.2020 titled “Gas leaks in IFFCO Plant, 2 Officers dead”)xi. Order dated 11.02.2021, in relation to accident of toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant in Orissa” (O.A. No. 09/2021, News item published in The Indian Express dated 07.01.2021 titled “Four workers dead due to toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant”) and one of the reasons for the same is inadequate monitoring. In OA 85/2020, Aryavart Foundation v. Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. Vide order dated 03.02.2021, directions have been issued to improve the same. We have already noted in other proceedings (i) Vide order dated 21.09.2020, OA 673/2018, CPCB”(ii) Vide order dated 21.08.2020, OA 681/2018, News item published in “The Times of India” Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan titled “NCAP with multiple timelines to clean air in 102 cities to be released around August 15”(iii) Vide order dated 14.11.2019 in OA 1038/2018, News item published in “The Asian Age” Authored by Sanjay Kaw Titled “CPCB to rank industrial units on pollution levels”(iv) Vide order dated 28.02.2020 in OA No. 606/2018, 2016.(v) Vide order dated 18.01.2021 in OA 710/2017, Shahjahanpur with regard to bio-medical waste(vi) Vide order dated 29.01.2021 in OA 804/2017 that as per official statistics, 100 industrial clusters are polluted, 351 river stretches are polluted and 122 cities are non-attainment in terms of air quality, apart from huge gaps in waste generation and management. Inspite of monitoring of the said issues by this Tribunal, the situation is far from any improvement. Thus, it is undeniable that stringent steps for monitoring to achieve goal of sustainable development are required. While monitoring must certainly improve, such suggestion is not enough to presume that pollution load by coal-fired brick kilns will reach zero so as to sustain coal-fired brick kilns in NCR in severe air quality conditions. In such situation, potential damage to public health cannot be ignored, while dealing with the issue of activity having potential for pollution, in the area having no carrying capacity to sustain further pollution load.

20. Thus, we conclude that going by the order dated 15.10.2020, in ‘severe’ air quality conditions, coal-fired brick kilns cannot be allowed to operate in NCR even if zig zag technology is used and improved procedures are followed, as suggested by the Committee, unless there is switch over to the PNG. All other issues have already been dealt with in the earlier order. In para 7 of order dated 05.03.2020 and para 8 of order dated 23.03.2020, we have already held that compliance by an individual brick kiln, otherwise contributing to pollution load beyond carrying capacity, does not confer a right to continue such activity, when such activity attracts GRAP in ‘severe’ air quality condition. As noted in par 11 of the order dated 15.10.2020, the CPCB has found that there is no assimilative capacity during the period air quality is ‘severe’ and only during months of March to June there is a limited capacity. Inter-se distance of atleast 500 meters is required to be maintained in location of brick kilns. When brick kilns start, they should not be allowed to start simultaneously but their firing should be staggered to avoid adverse impact on the environment. Other safeguards of fugitive dust emission management need to be adopted. In para 18 of order dated 15.10.2020, the issue of non-availability of plea of discrimination to GRAP, attracting some polluting categories and not attracting other polluting activities, has already been dealt with. Accordingly, we reiterate this mandate.

21. In view of the above discussion, unless there is change to cleaner fuel (PNG), brick kilns beyond the number mentioned in Table 15 above cannot be allowed, in the NCR. Since there is variance of figures given during March to June, only such number can be allowed which can be sustained throughout the period i.e. the minimum figure of a particular month out of the four months which comes to 444 in Haryana (in the month of May) and 200 in UP (in the month of June). Such shortlisting may be done applying a suitable siting criteria taking into account inter-se distance and distance from sensitive locations and compliance of consent conditions for which the CPCB, State PCB may work out an appropriate mechanism. Further, location of brick kilns be scattered on pro-rata basis, in different directions of concerned area, having regard to background and carrying capacity parameters. Needless to say, those brick kilns which switch over to PNG will be entitled to operate even beyond months of March to June and even beyond limited number mentioned, subject to compliance with law.

22. The application will stand disposed of in above terms.

23. A copy of this order be forwarded to CPCB, UP, Haryana and Rajasthan State PCBs for compliance.