HC seeks clarity on paddy straw pollution impact, cost of pellet units
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made clear its intent to consider whether the burning of huge paddy stocks in Punjab’s agricultural fields generates more pollution than using paddy straw pellets in brick kilns. The court is set to address the critical environmental issue as it hears a bunch of petition concerning the adverse effects of paddy burning and potential alternatives.
“After hearing counsel for the rival parties for a while, the issue that has cropped up is as to whether the burning of huge paddy stocks available in the agricultural fields in the State of Punjab is causing more pollution or whether burning the paddy straw pellets in brick kilns will cause more pollution,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal asserted.
Senior counsel for one of the petitioners D.S. Patwalia also agreed to submit a detailed cost estimate for setting up paddy pelletization units before the next hearing. The case has been adjourned to November 14, 2024, for further deliberation.
In the petition filed through Patwalia, along with advocates Kannan Malik, Gauravjit Patwalia and Lagan Kaur Sidhu and Alisha Sharda, the Punjab Brick Kiln Owners Association was seeking directions to the State of Punjab and other respondents to allow it to comply with the provisions of the Environment Amendment Rules 2022, granted discretion to all brick kilns to use coal as an approved fuel and not restrict the usage of any approved fuel.
The petitioner contended the State of Punjab miserably failed to interpret the 2022 Rules while issuing notification dated November 4, 2022. It was “in teeth of the 2022 Rules” and could not be given effect to up till the same were in existence. “There is no enabling provision under the2022 Rules to empower the State Pollution Control Board/ State government to impose a set of approved fuels upon the brick kilns. On the other hand, the 2022 Rules provide discretion to the brick kilns to use any type of the approved fuel as enumerated under it,” the Bench was told.
