CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 20.08.2009
1) CWP No. 21544 of 2008
M/s M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab Pollution Control Board and others. ..Respondents
__:__
2) CWP No. 16306 of 2007
Village Welfare & Environment Bachao Committee, Samgoli.
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
__:__
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [2]
Present : Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate,for the petitioner-unit
M/s M.K.Overseas Private Limited in Civil Writ Petition
No. 21544 of 2008 and
(for Respondent No. 3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 16306 of
2007, alongwith Mr.Ravi Sodhi, Advocate).
Mr. S.S.Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 16306 of 2007.
Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate,
for Punjab Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for Punjab State Electricity
Board.
Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate,
for Central Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for respondent-State of Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4
in Civil Writ Petition No. 16306 of 2007
*****
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)
Civil Writ Petition No. 21544 of 2008 under Article 226
of the Constitution of India assails an order dated 19.12.2008 issued by
the Punjab Pollution Control Board in exercise of its powers vested
under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974. The backdrop in which this order has been made is
elaborately set out in the order itself, from a reading whereof, it appears
that the Punjab Pollution Control Board Authorities based on the
inspections conducted by them noticed several deficiencies in the
Effluent Treatment Plant set up by the petitioner-unit. These
deficiencies have been enumerated as under:-
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [3]
5. At the time of visit, it was observed that one no.
Secondary Clarifier (after Ist stage Aeration)
was not in operation & was empty. Both the
aeration tanks were being used in series, as
such, the treatment system was functioning as
single stage aeration system.
6. The Pressure Sand Filter & Activated Carbon
Filters installed by the industry were not in
operation and the treated trade effluent from the
pre-filtration tank was being discharged for
plantation/irrigation bye-passing these filter
units.
7. The industry has installed water meter at the
final outlet of the ETP, but it is not maintaining
any record for the quantity of treated trade
effluent discharged by the industry. However,
during visit, the quantity of treated trade effluent
discharged by the industry was measured from
the water meter installed by the industry, which
was about 25 Kl/hr.
8. The industry is not maintaining any record
regarding consumption of the chemicals for the
operation of the ETP.
9. During visit, the monitoring of various
components of the ETP installed by the industry
as well as the treated trade effluent discharged
by the industry was carried out. The analysis
results indicate that the conc. of various
pollutants ( i.e. BOD-220 mg/1, TSS-120 mg/1
and TDS-5040 mg/1) in the treated trade
effluent ( i.e. at the outlet of ETP) discharged by
the industry is beyond the permissible limits
prescribed by the Board for such discharges
onto land for irrigation/plantation.
10.All the trenches in the irrigation fields
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [4]
including the areas having no plantation as well
as areas where plants were at the initial stage of
growth, were full of treated or partially treated
effluents. Two no. samples of effluents from
trenches i.e. In the irrigation fields, were found
to have TSS-265 & 120 mg/1, TDS-8346 & 8138
mg/1, BOD-655 & 1150 mg/1 and COD-1664 &
2560 mg/1 confirming the application of
untreated/partially treated effluent on land for
irrigation/plantation.
11.The industry has developed about 12.5 acres of
land as per Karnal Technology for utilization of
its treated trade effluent. In addition to this land,
the industry has also developed lawns in an area
of about 10 acres. The industry has installed
pipe line distribution network for its lawns.
However, the distribution system for the
disposal of treated trade effluent in its
plantation area is with flexible pipes. But during
visit, stagnation of effluent was observed inside
and outside the industrial premises in its
plantation area.
12.The sludge drying beds provided by the industry
do not have adequate filter media and were not
maintained properly. These beds were found
chocked and sludge in semi-liquid form was
being lifted by the industry in trolley/tanker for
disposal. This sludge was being disposed off by
the industry into unlined pits outside the
industry on the land, which were earlier used for
disposal of solid waste from Lairage area.
13.Two number ground water samples of the
industry were also collected by the team from
the peizometers provided by the industry inside
the premises. The analysis of ground water
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [5]
samples collected by the team from the
peizometer wells ( about 80 ft. deep) located
within the unit’s premises shows the BOD-6 & 8
mg/1 and COD-29 & 32 mg/1, indicating that
the ground water quality has been affected by
the discharge of effluent.
14.The industry has installed Salt Recovery System
consisting of collection tank and evaporation
pans to separate the salt from leather house
wastewater and no effluent from leather house
was being discharged into the ETP. These pans
are slightly above the ground level and were full
to their capacity. In addition to this, the industry
has also completed the civil construction work
of 3 no. additional solar evaporation ponds of
size 20 mx 10 mx 1 m each. But the same are yet
to be put into operation. The unit has proposed
solar evaporation for high TDS effluent in these
ponds. With the commissioning of these
evaporation ponds, the existing pans shall be
discontinued.
15.The Rendering Plant installed by the industry
was in operation. It has been provided with a
cyclone, condenser and a bio-filter, so as to
arrest the vapours of volatile material from the
cooker exhaust. The bio-filter is at ground level,
consists of grid of perforated pipes covered with
bed of sand, different sizes of aggregates and
rice husk etc. The husk is kept wet by way of
sprinkling water to contain the odorous
emissions from the cooker section. The
emissions of the bio-filter were being escaped
into the atmosphere at about 5 ft. above ground
level causing odour in the adjoining area.
16.The industry is in the process of constructing
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [6]
one no. collection tank of size 25 m x 15m x 4m
and a storage tank of size 37 m x 20m x 5.5 m
for further managing its effluent.”
Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Board on the
above aspects, as also the final order of closure of the unit and the
directions issued to the Punjab State Electricity Board for disconnecting
the electricity supply, the petitioner-unit has filed the present petition as
noticed earlier.
When the petition came up before us for hearing on
22.12.2008, Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the petitioner-unit
expressed apprehension about the impartiality of the approach and the
fairness of the process undertaken by the respondent-Board in dealing
with the questions relating to the efficacy of the Effluent Treatment
Plant established by it. It was contended by Mr. Khosla that the
petitioner-unit was ready and willing to be evaluated from the point of
view of efficacy of its system and the adequacy of the anti pollution
measures installed by the Central Pollution Control Board. On behalf of
the Punjab Pollution Control Board, it was on the other hand, argued by
Mr. Takkar that the findings recorded by the Board in the impugned
order were all based on the observations and reports prepared by the
officers on the basis of their site visits and test reports of samples taken
in the course of such visits. It was also contended that the Board had
not passed the impugned order under any duress as suggested by the
petitioner nor was the petitioner singled out for any hostile treatment.
All the same, the Board was according to the learned counsel not averse
to the unit being reassessed and re-evaluated from the point of view of
efficacy and adequacy of Effluent Treatment Plant installed in the same
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [7]
and other pollution control measures by the Central Pollution Control
Board. It was also stated that in case the Central Pollution Control
Board recorded its satisfaction about the efficacy and operational
efficiency of the pollution control measures, taken by the petitioner, it
could in supersession of the order, passed by the respondent-Board,
pass any order permitting the petitioner to resume its operations on such
conditions as the Board may consider.
This Court had in the above backdrop directed the Central
Pollution Control Board to have the entire system installed by the
petitioner-unit re-evaluated from the point of view of its adequacy and
efficacy and take a final decision as to whether the petitioner-unit could
be allowed to resume its operations and if so, subject to what
conditions. The Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board was
requested to nominate a team of officers to have the petitioner’s unit
evaluated from the point of view of the deficiencies reported by the
Punjab Pollution Control Board and also whether the Effluent
Treatment Plant installed in the same was adequate and efficacious and
whether the same is being run efficiently by the petitioner. Since the
Unit is a 100% export oriented unit, the Chairman of the Central
Pollution Control Board was requested to take expeditious steps in the
matter of nominating the team and issuing instructions to them to visit
the unit for inspection and submit their report preferably within a period
of 10 days from the date of the order. Liberty was given to the Central
Pollution Control Board to allow the petitioner unit to resume its
operations unconditionally or subject to the conditions which the
Central Pollution Control Board may choose to impose, if it was of the
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [8]
opinion on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee of the
officers, that such an order was justified. We had made it clear that in
case the Central Pollution Control Board passed any such order, the
same would take effect in supersession of the directions issued by the
State Board. We had also directed that pending fresh evaluation of the
Unit by the team nominated by the Chairman of the Central Board, the
State Board shall not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner in case the same had not been already encashed.
The Chairman of the Central Board in obedience of the
above directions appears to have constituted a Committee of officers
who had conducted an inspection of the unit on 13.01.2009 and
submitted a report to the Central Pollution Control Board. Based on the
said report, the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board has in
exercise of the powers vested on him under Section 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, passed an order dated 27.01.2009
permitting the petitioner-unit to resume operations subject to certain
conditions stipulated in the said order. For facility of reference, the
operative portion of the order passed by the Chairman, may be extracted
at this stage:-
” Now, therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid
inspection report and as empowered by and in
compliance of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court’s order, dated December 22, 2008, and in exercise
of powers delegated to the Chairman, Central Pollution
Control Board under Section 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the Unit is allowed to resume
operations subject to the following conditions:-
1. The unit shall properly stabilize the effluent treatment
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [9]
plant (ETP) and operate ETP and other pollution
control measures so as to meet the prescribed
standards; and
2. The unit shall fully comply with the CPCB’s direction
dated October 10, 2008, including the time schedules
fixed, failing which the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs
submitted by them to the Punjab Pollution Control
Board would be forfeited in full or in part as may be
directed by CPCB; and
3. The unit shall submit monthly progress and status of
compliance report to PPCB and CPCB by 7th day of the
succeeding month during the validity of the Bank
Guarantee.
CPCB will review, through inspection by CPCB alone
or jointly with PPCB, the implementation of various
measures and compliance of its direction by the Unit
from time to time and in case of non-compliance with
any of the above conditions, CPCB may initiate
appropriate action against the Unit at any time as per
the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986.”
The Unit has pursuant to the said directions resumed its
operations. From the status report filed on the affidavit of
Dr. A.B.Akolkar, Additional Director, Central Pollution Control
Board, Delhi, it appears that a team of officers from the Central
Pollution Control Board conducted a further inspection of the unit on
19.05.2009 followed by a final inspection made on 30.07.2009. The
affidavit specifically states that out of 8 different steps that were
required to be taken by the Unit, only one remains to be taken by it
while the others have already been complied with satisfactorily. The
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [10]
affidavit presents the picture regarding the compliance of the steps
stipulated by the Central Pollution Control Board in a tabular form as
under:-
Main actions/conditions stipulated Target date Status based
in CPCB's directions dated on the CPCB's
10.10.2008 and 27.01.2009 inspection
reports.
To make arrangements for disposal of With Complied
solid waste immediate
effect
To install peizometer at appropriate 15.10.2008 Complied
locations
Proper Irrigation with sprinklers, 31.12.2008 Complied
increased density of plantation,
kitchen garden and rain guns.
Construction of RCC tank of 1500 KL 31.12.2008 Complied
for effluent
Construction of solar evaporation 31.12.2008 Complied
pans
Construction of tank of 1 month 31.01.2009 Storage facility
( 18,180 KL) capacity for storing of 11,770 KL
treated effluent. capacity
provided.
To increase validity of Bank -- Complied
Guarantee already submitted to PPCB
till 15.8.2009
Providing forced evaporation system. 30.06.2009 Completed.
To submit progress report By 7th day of Reports are
succeeding being received
month. regularly.
In so far as the increase of the storage capacity of the
effluent generated by the Unit is concerned, the affidavit states that as
against 18,180 KL, the unit has storage capacity of 11770 KL only. The
Unit has therefore to limit its effluent discharge to maximum of 450 KL
per day particularly during monsoon season, as the demand for
irrigation goes down during the said season. The report enclosed with
the affidavit also states that the sample collected from the unit upon
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [11]
tests shows that the same meets the prescribed standards. The report
says as under:-
” The installed capacity of effluent treatment plant
(ETP) provided by the Unit is 710 KLD. As per the
analysis report of sample collected on May 19, 2009,
treated effluent meets the standards.”
On behalf of the respondents, it was in the above back
ground argued that the Unit may have to add its storage capacity as
required by the Central Pollution Control Board as storage capacity is
less than what has been stipulated by the Central Pollution Control
Board.
Mr. Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
unit, however, has no objection to the enhancement of the storage
capacity of the unit from 11,770 KL to 18,180 KL. He submits that the
Unit would take appropriate steps in this regard and ensure that the
enhanced capacity is available within next three months. Mr Kholsa
further submits that since the Central Pollution Control Board has
already passed an order permitting the petitioner to resume its
operations upon satisfaction of the objections that were at one stage
raised by the State Board and since the order passed has the effect of
superseding the order to the contrary made by the Punjab Pollution
Control Board, this petition could be disposed of with appropriate
directions.
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that while
the petition could be disposed of with a direction to the unit to enhance
the storage capacity suitably, the disposal of the petition should not
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [12]
prevent the Central Pollution Control Board or the Punjab Pollution
Control Board from taking the samples as and when considered
necessary for the purposes of verifying whether the systems installed by
the petitioner-unit are working efficiently. It was submitted that
disposal of this petition should not be understood to mean that the
question regarding compliance with the standards fixed under the law
for installation and functional efficacy of the Effluent Treatment Plant
stands concluded for all times. The question whether the Unit is
complying with the requirements of law will be a matter that would
have to be continuously monitored and appropriate steps be taken as
and when it is found to be falling short of the legal requirements.
There is in our opinion no gain saying that the installation
of the Effluent Treatment Plant and providing of basic requirements,
considered essential by the Central Pollution Control Board or the
Punjab Pollution Control Board, is only one aspect of the matter. The
second and the more important aspect is whether such systems and
plants, that are installed, are made to work efficiently. For that purpose,
the Pollution Control Board Authorities shall have to remain vigilant
and conduct periodic checking/inspection and tests to ensure that the
plants installed by the petitioner-unit are not only ornamental but are
actually put to use. It also goes without saying that in case the tests
conducted on the samples collected by the competent authorities fail to
meet the standards prescribed for the same, the authorities would be
free to pass appropriate orders for closure of the unit or for further
directions considered appropriate. For the present, all that we need say
is that the order passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board shutting
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [13]
down the unit is no longer effective in as much as the same stands
superseded by the order passed by the Central Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Takkar was fair enough to state that in the light of the
subsequent developments mentioned earlier, the Punjab Pollution
Control Board would have no difficulty in withdrawing the impugned
order. Mr. Takkar, however, submitted that the fact that the reference
had been made to the Central Pollution Control Board and steps
pursuant to the directions issued by the said Board have been taken by
the petitioner and found to be adequate for the present, should not be
interpreted to mean that the Punjab Pollution Control Board authorities
were in any way biased against the petitioner-unit nor should the same
be interpreted to mean that any action which the Punjab Pollution
Control Board authorities may take against the petitioner would
necessarily be biased or partisan in nature. We see no reason to decline
that clarification. Just because there was an apprehension expressed by
the petitioner unit regarding fairness of the officers of the Punjab
Pollution Control Board and just because this Court made reference to
the Central Pollution Control Board to find an early solution to the
problem created on account of the closure of the unit, would not mean
that this Court had accepted the allegations of bias or partisan attitude
levelled by the petitioner-unit against the State Board and its officers.
This would also not mean that the State Board authorities would not be
entitled to monitor the working of the unit or take steps that are
otherwise permissible in law upon failure of the petitioner unit to
comply with the legal requirements.
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [14]
Mr. Khosla at this stage submits that the bank guarantee
furnished by the petitioner could be released to the petitioner unit. We
do not see any reason why the bank guarantee should be held beyond
the period necessary. At the same time, we find that the bank guarantee
ought to continue till such time the petitioner unit complies with the
requirements of increasing the storage capacity to 18,180 KL.
Before parting, we may as well deal with an incidental
issue that has been raised by the petitioner-committee in Civil Writ
Petition No. 16306 of 2007 against the respondent No. 3 Unit
petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 21544 of 2008. Petitioner in Civil
Writ Petition No. 16306 of 2007 happens to be a Village Welfare &
Environment Bachao Committee, which has made a grievance against
M/s M.L.Overseas Private Limited-petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.
21544 of 2008 that the operation of the unit established by the said
company results in obnoxious smell making the lives of those residing
in the vicinity of the unit miserable. It is submitted that because of the
slaughtering of animals and the processing of the residual remains of
slaughtered animals which are thrown in the open fields and adjoining
jungles and because of untreated water that discharges in the adjoining
fields, the entire area is affected by foul smell, which is injurious to
health. Certain photographs showing discharge of the water and
remains of dead animals have also been placed on record. It was
contended on behalf of the petitioner Committee that this Court could
in public interest issue appropriate directions to the authorities to
examine the issue more closely and to save the inhabitants of the area
from what is serious hazard for their health and lives.
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [15]
Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the petitioner-unit submits
that the petitioner-unit has taken adequate steps in the matter and there
is at present no foul smell being emitted by the operation or working of
the unit. He urged that this issue could be got verified from the
Pollution Control Board Authorities also to set at rest this part of the
controversy.
Mr. Takkar, learned counsel for the State Board was also
not averse to the matter being examined by the State Authorities having
regard to the norms, if any, on the subject for emission of foul smell or
odour and in which event the company could be directed to take
whatever steps necessary or feasible.
In the circumstances, therefore, the question whether the
working of the unit is causing inconvenience or hardship or source of
any health hazard for the residents of the area, whether in terms of
emission of foul smell or odour or otherwise, is a matter that can be
left to be examined more closely by the Punjab Pollution Control
Board. It is noteworthy that this Court had at one stage appointed Local
Commissioner to visit the spot and to report whether there is any foul
smell being emitted by working of the unit. The report submitted by the
Local Commissioner is also available on record which can be made use
by the Punjab Pollution Control Board in case the same is otherwise
found to be of any use. Suffice it to say that the petitioner committee as
also the Punjab Pollution Control Board authorities shall be free to
bring up the matter for consideration at the appropriate level for passing
of orders which are considered necessary in the circumstances.
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [16]
In the result, we dispose of both the writ petitions in the
following terms:-
i) The petitioner company in Civil Writ Petition No.
21544 of 2008 shall comply with the direction
issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in
regard to the increase in the storage capacity from
11,770 KL to 18,180 KL within a period of three
months from today i.e. on or before 30.11.2009.
ii) The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner-unit
shall continue with the Board till increase in the
storage capacity is achieved to the satisfaction of the
Punjab Pollution Control Board. The petitioner-unit
shall keep the bank guarantee duly renewed if the
same is otherwise limited in point of time during all
this period.
iii) Punjab Pollution Control Board so also Central
Pollution Control Board shall be free and indeed
duty bound to make proper visits and conduct
proper inspections and take samples and conduct
tests to ensure that the provisions of the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder are strictly complied with
by the petitioner unit. In the event of any default, the
said authorities shall be free to pass appropriate
orders on the subject including orders by way of
closure of the unit.
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [17]
iv) The petitioner Committee in Civil Writ Petition No.
16306 of 2007 shall be free to make a proper
representation to the Chairman of the Punjab
Pollution Control Board pointing out the nature of
the hazards faced by them on account of the working
of the unit, in which event the Board shall look into
the matter and pass appropriate orders on the same
expeditiously but not later than three months from
the date the representation is received.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
20.08.2009
‘ravinder’
CWP No. 21544 of 2008 [18]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16306 of 2007
Date of Decision: 20.08.2009
Village Welfare & Environment Bachao Committee, Samgoli.
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
*****
Present : Mr. S.S.Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Advocate,
alongwith Mr.Ravi Sodhi, Advocate
for respondent No. 3
Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate,
for Punjab Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for Punjab State Electricity
Board.
Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate,
for Central Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for respondent-State of Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.4
____
For orders see, Civil Writ Petition No. 21544 of 2008.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
20.08.2009
‘ravinder’