Punjab: Paddy producers stuck in the labyrinth of slow procurement
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made clear its intention to consider whether burning of paddy residue in agricultural fields of Punjab causes more pollution than the use of paddy straw pellets in brick kilns. The court is set to consider this important environmental issue as it is hearing a series of petitions related to the adverse effects of paddy burning and possible alternatives. “After hearing the counsel for the rival parties for some time, the issue has come up as to whether burning of the vast paddy residue available in the agricultural fields of the State of Punjab is causing more pollution or whether burning of paddy straw pellets in brick kilns will cause more pollution,” a division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Khetarpal said. Senior counsel DS Patwalia, appearing for one of the petitioners, also agreed to submit a detailed cost estimate for setting up paddy pellets before the next hearing.
The matter has been adjourned till November 14 for further deliberations. In the petition filed through Patwalia along with advocates Kannan Malik, Gauravjit Patwalia, Lagan Kaur Sidhu and Alisha Sharda, the Punjab Brick Kiln Owners Association had sought directions to the State of Punjab and other respondents to allow them to comply with the provisions of the Environment Amendment Rules 2022, which provide discretion to all brick-kiln owners to use coal as an approved fuel and not restrict the use of any approved fuel. The petitioner argued that the State of Punjab miserably failed to interpret the 2022 Rules while issuing the notification dated November 4, 2022. This was “contrary to the 2022 Rules” and could not be given effect to as long as these existed. “There is no enabling provision under the 2022 Rules to empower the State Pollution Control Board and the State Government to impose a set of approved fuels on brick kilns. On the other hand, the 2022 Rules provide discretion to brick kiln owners to use any of the approved fuels listed therein,” the bench was told.
