Plea against notices to bakeries, hotels: Bombay HC asks MPCB to decide whether charcoal is approved fuel

Senior advocate Kevic Setalvad and advocate Prerak Choudhary for the BCMA submitted that charcoal was on the list of approved fuels and was not the same as coal. Setalvad added that MPCB issued notices to various bakeries, Bhatti hotels, and restaurants asking them to stop using charcoal or else face closure.

“There is a misconception that coal and charcoal are one and the same and notices are issued without drawing the distinction between the two. Charcoal is not a polluting fuel and instead falls under green category fuel, is carbon neutral and no fly ash comes out of charcoal burning,” Setalvad argued. He added that due to such notices, several people are changing fuel, leading to a reduction in the customer base of charcoal suppliers.

He said that charcoal is even included in the standard list of approved fuels by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), which has conducted studies showing that it does not contribute significantly to pollution.

Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni representing MPCB submitted that it has taken steps as per the high court order to convert bakeries using wood and coal. The notices mention ‘coal’ and not ‘charcoal’, he added.

“All these aspects can be gone into by an expert body. MPCB has to clarify and the association has to satisfy it that the charcoal is not polluting,” the HC remarked.

“In view of directions passed in January 9 order, we deem it appropriate to direct MPCB to give opportunity of hearing to the association, a proposed intervener, before proceeding further with show cause notices issued to its members,” the bench noted.

It asked BCMA to file representation to MPCB within two weeks and said “MPCB shall give a hearing and take a decision whether charcoal is in the list of approved fuels and does not cause any pollution.”

It also allowed intervenors including NGO Vanashakti to participate in the hearings and asked MPCB to submit its report on the hearing and decision within six weeks.

The Association in its intervention plea claimed that “their livelihood was getting distorted and seriously prejudiced,” and their rights guaranteed under Section 21 of the Constitution were being infringed upon.

It said while directions were intended to be issued by authorities only in respect of bakeries using ‘Bhatti’ without obtaining valid licenses, the restaurants having valid licenses were getting affected due to authorities’ actions.

Moreover, the plea said members of the BCMA were operating from leasehold plots owned by Mumbai Port Trust and lease conditions do not permit change of land use from charcoal to any other business.

The HC also directed MPCB and the state government to file a report of compliance with the January 9 order on or before April 21, when it will hear the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) next.