REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6776 OF 2009
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6963 OF 2007
Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners .... Appellants
Association
Versus
Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection .... Respondents
Association and others
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6777 OF 2009
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28296 OF 2008
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed against the Judgment and
Order dated 22.12.2006 of the Madras High Court in writ petition
no. 29791 of 2003 and order dated 27.2.2007 dismissing the
Review Application No.14 of 2007 in the said case.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are
that a Public Interest Litigation was filed by the Noyyal River
2
Ayacutdars Protection Association, a registered Association
(Respondent No. 1), for seeking directions for preservation of
ecology and for keeping the Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from
pollution. According to the said Association, a large number of
industries, some of them respondents before the writ court and
appellants herein had indulged in dyeing and bleaching works at
Tirupur area and discharging the industrial effluents into the
Noyyal river which created water pollution to the extent, that the
water of the river was neither fit for irrigation nor potable. The
pollution also adversely affected the Orthapalayam reservoir and
other tanks and channels of the said river. A similar issue i.e.
menace of pollution had also earlier been raised by another
association namely Karur Taluk Noyyal Canal Agriculturists
Association by filing writ petition(c) no. 1649 of 1996 before the
Madras High Court. The High Court disposed of the said petition
vide judgment and order dated 26.2.1998 on the basis of joint
Memo of Understanding filed by all the contesting parties, which
contained the terms, to implement the pollution control
measures and to pay the damages etc. The High Court directed
the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (hereinafter called as
3
“Board”) to implement the pollution control and environmental
laws and also granted liberty to decide the amount for which
dyeing units were liable to reimburse for the loss caused by
pollution. The dyeing and bleaching units were directed to
contribute an amount to meet the expenses of cleaning of the
Orathapalayam dam. For compliance of the said order, a period
of three months was given.
4. The dyeing and bleaching units’ Association filed an
application for extension of time for compliance of the aforesaid
directions issued by the High Court but the said application was
rejected by the Court vide Order dated 29.4.1998. Being
aggrieved, the Association of the unit owners approached this
Court by filing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8601, 8641,
8747 and 9150 of 1998. This Court issued some directions in
respect of 53 units in Tirupur and 97 units in Karur. As these
directions were complied with, the said petitions were disposed of
vide order dated 8.1.1999 as nothing survived.
5. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued order dated
14.12.2000 to carry out a study on the restoration of
Orthapalayam Dam with the help of the department of
4
Environmental Sciences of Tamil Nadu, environmental NGOs,
entrepreneurs together with Department of Forests. The study
was completed and a report was prepared, according to which,
there had been no improvement in the quality of water.
Thereafter, the present respondent no.1 (Noyyal River Ayacutdars
Protection Association) filed Writ Petition no. 29791 of 2003
before the Madras High Court and sought directions that
respondent nos. 1-3 therein, would clean the river water stored
at Orathapalayam dam within a stipulated time with its own
expenses, or to recover the expenses which could be recovered
from the dyeing and bleaching Units Associations and thereby
preventing the pollution of the Noyyal river in future by the said
units i.e. members of the Association. An interim relief was
sought to restrain the private respondents from discharging their
industrial effluents into Noyyal river.
6. The case was contested by the present appellant as well as
by the State Government and other State instrumentalities. It
was pointed out to the High Court that recommendations made
by various committees to prevent further pollution were being
5
given effect to and a huge amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- (rupees
one crore and ninety five lacs) would be required for the project of
cleaning and a sum of Rs.23 crores was required for installation
of treatment plants. The Association of Units owners had to
establish R.O. (Reverse Osmosis) system and to attain Zero
Liquid Discharge (hereinafter called ZLD) of the trade effluents.
Thus, the said Association was required to deposit a sum
equivalent of 25% of the R.O. cost and 50% of the project cost
etc. and it was also pointed out that 150 pre-treatment plants
were also likely to be established. The Court passed the order
dated 26.12.2006, as an interim measure keeping the petition
pending, issuing the following directions :
“(a) The CETPs are given time upto the 31 st of July, 2007 to
achieve the Zero Liquid Discharge(ZLD) of trade effluents
subject to the following conditions :
(i) The concerned CETPs are directed to pay a fine on
pro rata basis at the rate of six paise per litre from
Ist January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007; at the rate of
eight paise per litre from Ist April, 2007 to 31st May,
2007; and at the rate of ten paise per litre from 1st
June, 2007 to 31st July, 2007. The fine amount
payable by the respective CETPs shall be arrived at
by multiplying the fine amount i.e. six, eight or ten
paise, as the case may be, by the total quantity of
discharge of each Member Units of CETP as per the
consent certificate or as the quantity found in the
6
application for consent and also by the total number
of working days in a month. The fine amount thus
calculated shall be paid by the respective CETPs on
the last date of every month. In case the CETPs or
any of them commit any default in payment of fine,
the Pollution Control Board shall direct closure of
such defaulting CETP and the Member Units and
also disconnect the power supply to such defaulting
CETP and the Member Units.
(ii) The CETPs or any of them on achieving Zero Liquid
Discharge shall satisfy the Pollution Control Board
about their ZLD status and the Pollution Control
Board upon verification shall issue appropriate
certificate from which date, such CETP shall not be
liable to pay the fine. In any event, if the CETPs or
any of them fail to achieve the ZLD on or before 31st
July, 2007, the Pollution Control Board shall
forthwith direct closure of such CETPs and the
Member Units and also disconnect the power
supply to such defaulting CETP and the Member
Units.
(b) The respondents 4 to 7 herein are directed to deposit
the balance sum of Rs.8.50 Crores out of Rs.12.50 Crores
estimated by the P.W.D. towards the cleaning and desilting
operations of the Orathapalayam dam to be carried out by
the Public Works Department in two equal instalments, the
first of such instalments being payable on or before 28th of
February, 2007 and the second instalment to be paid on or
before the 30th April, 2007.
(c) The respondents 4 to 7 are directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.22,99,98,548/- being the remaining of the total
compensation of Rs.24,79,98,548/- awarded by the Loss of
Ecology Authority in its Award dated 17.12.2004. This
amount shall also be payable in two equal instalments, the
first of such instalments being payable on or before the 28th
7
of February, 2007 and the second instalment to be paid on
or before the 30th of April, 2007.
(d) The respondents 4 to 7 are further directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.12 crores as an ad-hoc compensation towards
the estimated loss for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
This amount shall be payable in two equal instalments, the
first of such instalments being payable on or before 15th
June, 2007, and the second instalment to be paid on or
before 31st July, 2007.
…………..
(q) The Public Works Department is directed to continue with
the cleaning and desilting operations of the
Orathapalayam Dam and the cleaning of the Noyyal river
shall be carried out through the petitioner association as per
the orders of this Court. The District Collector, Coimbatore
is directed to release a sum of Rs.25 lakhs directly to the
petitioner-Agriculturists Association towards the charges for
cleaning of the Noyyal river and the works to be carried out
upto the confluence point of the river with river Cauvery.
(r) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to finalise the site
for dumping the solid waste from the Orathapalayam dam
as well as from the Noyyal river which has been kept in
bags and in open spaces. The Pollution Control Board is
directed to provide the infrastructure and technical
expertise for removal of the solid waste from the units as
well as the dam to the notified site. The above exercise
shall be done within a period of three months.
(s) Both the Expert Committee as well as the Monitoring
Committee shall submit periodical reports before this Court
every two months.
(t) The Monitoring Committee shall be paid a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per day/per visit as charges.”
8
7. The present appellant filed a Review Petition which
was dismissed vide Order dated 27.12.2007. Hence, these
appeals.
8. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee & Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant have submitted that
the High Court while entertaining the Public Interest Litigation
passed the impugned order imposing a very heavy fine on the
basis of pro rata @ 6 paise, 8 paise and 10 paise per litre for the
period of two months, as mentioned therein, for water discharge
from each unit amounting to several crores of rupees without any
report of the expert committee. There was no material on record
on the basis of which such a liability could be fastened on the
unit owners. The calculation of fine/compensatory expenses at
such a higher rate was not based on any scientific data and,
therefore, such imposition of fines etc. cannot be held justifiable.
More so, the High Court ought to have allowed the Review
Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant has always been
willing to safeguard the environment and to prevent pollution
and discharge of effluents into Noyyal river or Orathapalayam
9
dam. In view of the fact that the industrial units had undertaken
to fix the R.O. plant and to achieve ZLD and it had set up 17
CETPs investing a huge amount of about 700 crores, such
onerous liability should not have been imposed. The industrial
units have already installed a pre-treatment plant to prevent the
untreated effluents to be discharged either into the river or dam.
The High Court failed to appreciate that there are more than 40
thousand families to earn their livelihood on dyeing and
bleaching industry. Several lakh persons are employed in its
ancillary industries who directly depend on this business and
most of them are basically the erstwhile agriculturists who could
not earn their livelihood because of the barren nature of their
land and for want of proper rain over several years. A large
number of people have indulged in transport activities because of
such heavy industries in Tirupur area. Therefore, the order
impugned is liable to be set aside and appeals deserved to be
allowed.
9. On the other hand, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has submitted that in
10
spite of several orders passed by the High Court, there could
have been no improvement in the ecological set up of the area.
The “precautionary principle” and principle of “polluter-pays” are
the integral part and parcel of national environmental law. The
appellant is bound to compensate the persons who have suffered
the loss because of the activity of its members, as water of the
river is neither worth for irrigation purpose nor potable. The
members of the appellant association being responsible for the
pollution, cannot escape the responsibility of not meeting the
expenses of removing the sludge from the river and cleaning the
dam and treating the water to make it pollution free. The cost so
imposed by the High Court by the impugned order, is based on
the report of the Expert Committee. In spite of the fact that the
High Court had passed several orders and extended the period
from time to time to take all possible measures to establish the
RO system and achieve ZLD, no improvement could be made. In
case the said members of the Association are not willing to
achieve the pollution free atmosphere, they do not have any right
to continue with their industrial activities. The appeals lack
merit and are liable to be dismissed.
11
10. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Pollution Control Board has submitted that
Pollution Control Board had taken all measures to prevent the
pollution and also inspected CETPs established by the appellant
and found that there is much improvement but has not been
cured fully. Certain steps are still required to be taken by the
Association to prevent the menace of pollution.
11. We have considered the rival contentions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per
the pleadings of the case, Tirupur is the place exporting the
finest garments like T-shirts, inner wears to all foreign countries.
The competitors are Bangladesh and China. Tirupur is an
industrial hub providing employment to 5 lakh persons. The
State Government has granted Sales Tax exemption to the units
indulged in bleaching and dyeing units, considering the
importance of the place and taking into account the nature of the
industries. The country earns about 10,000/- crores in foreign
exchange annually. The industries have provided the means of
livelihood to a large number of persons indulged in transport of
12
passengers and goods in the area to the extent of 80 kilometers
radius for the purpose of fetching labourers residing away from
the city and to deal with the export business.
12. Undoubtedly, in the earlier writ petition filed by
another association for similar relief, the High Court as well as
this Court dealt with the case and disposed of the same after
compliance of directions issued by the courts. In the instant
case, it is evident from the record that the High Court issued
directions from time to time but the members of the appellant
Association had complied with such orders partly. The High
Court constituted an Expert Committee and also the Monitoring
Committee to assess the damage caused to the dam and the river
and to find out the modalities to remove the effect of pollution. It
also got the assessment of the amount required for removing the
sludge from the river and for the treatment of the water, making
it worth for irrigation and human consumption. So far as
imposition of fine @ 6 paise per litre and then enhancing to 8
paise and subsequently to 10 paise per litre periodically is
concerned, High Court imposed it on the basis of Award/Report
13
dated 17.12.2004 by the Expert Committee under the heading
“Loss of Ecology (Prevention and payments of compensation) by
the Authority”. The Expert Committee consisted of Hon’ble Mr.
Justice P. Bhaskaran, a retired judge of Madras High Court, the
Secretary of the Department of Environment, Government of
Tamil Nadu and Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control
Board, New Delhi as its Member and Dr. K.R. Ranganathan,
former Member Secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board.
The Committee had taken note of all previous developments and
assessed the loss to ecology and environment in the affected
area. It also identified the individuals and families who suffered
because of pollution and further determined the amount of
compensation to be paid to each affected individual or family. It
also fixed the liability for making the payment of compensation.
The award mainly provided as under :
(a) The Authority assessed loss to the ecology and
environment in terms of use value of the
groundwater resources polluted with excessive
total dissolved solids (inorganic) utilized for
irrigation as a result of the pollutional impact of
effluents discharged by textile industries located
in and around Tirupur and its vicinity falling in
the Noyyal river basin. Extent of the so irrigated
land is arrived at 28,449.816 hectares in 68
14villages comprised in Seven Taluks or
Coimbatore, Erode and Karur Districts.
(b) The Authority identifies 28,596 individuals,
affected because of the pollution as eligible for
compensation.
(c) The authority assesses the compensation to be
paid to the aforesaid individuals as in (b) supra,
at a total sum of Rs.24,79,98,548 for the period
from 28.8.1996 to 31.12.2004.
………………
It is pertinent to point out that thrust of the work
for reversal is preventing further pollution of the
ground water which requires a number of
cleaning technology and treatment measures to
be undertaken by the industries with their own
funds.
13. It is evident that the High Court constituted the
Monitoring Committee consisting of technocrats and the terms
of Reference had been as under :
i) To inspect the cluster of industrial units in and around
Tirupur discharging trade effluents either directly and
indirectly into the Noyyal river and verify the volume of
the polluted water discharged into the river every day.
ii) To inspect and quantify the polluted water stored at the
Orathapalayam dam with details as to the present
condition of the sluices.
15
iii) To suggest ways and means for desilting or removing
the sludge that has formed in the dam area without
delay, taking advantage of the summer months.
iv) To explore and suggest ways and means to clean the
stored water and then release the treated water in the
river, by adopting any technical industrial process,its
estimated cost and the likely time, the process might
take its feasibility.
v) To suggest an immediate action plan for remediation of
Noyyal river and in particular the Orathapalayam dam
and the canals.
vi) To suggest ways and means for preventing the
discharge of polluted trade effluents either directly or
indirectly into the Noyyal river by the cluster of
industrial units in and around Tirupur during the
process of cleaning the dam area and later.
vii) To hold discussions with the agriculturists in the area,
farmers association, Industrialists, PWD and PCB
officials and the Loss of Ecology Authority, Chennai to
arrive at a solution relating to the problem as a whole.
viii) To submit interim and final reports within the stipulated
time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ix) To direct the Collectors of Coimbatore and Erode
Districts the Pollution Control Board and PWD officials
to coordinate with the Committee and provide them
necessary transport and other logistic requirements for
carrying out their work.
x) To meet specialists having knowledge on public health
relating to pollution, their cause and effect and possible
preventive measures.
16
It was, in fact, the Monitoring Committee in its memo dated 12th
July, 2005 made various suggestions before the High Court
regarding establishment of CETPs and gave costs for various
operations and one of the recommendations read as under:
“Apart from the earlier recommendation of the
Committee that no CETP which had not achieved
financial closure and deposited monies should be
permitted to reopen till financial closure is achieved
and monies deposited, the Committee further
recommends that all CETPs deposit the entire project
cost within a period of 2 weeks (after adjusting the
money spent by them towards the works in progress).
If the units do not so deposit, the Committee
recommends that they be shut down. The Committee
reiterates the fact that all CETPs ought to have
commissioned their RO system by today, if not much
earlier, if their earlier undertakings were taken into
account.
Apart from the condition on deposit of the entire
project cost (minus the monies actually spent), the
member units of all CETPs should be subject to a fine of
at least 10 paise per litre of effluent generated
(subjected to a minimum of Rs.10,000 per lakh litres of
effluent as reflected in the consent) at least from the Ist
of August, 2006.” (emphasis added)
14. The Monitoring Committee vide its memo dated 19th July
2006, submitted the Report before the High Court. It also
appears from the record that for the purpose of inspection of
CETPs the High Court vide order dated 1st August, 2005
17
constituted a Committee consisting of three lawyers namely
Mr. T. Mohan, Mr. S. Thangavel and Mr. M.M. Sundaresh,
making the terms of reference as under :
(1) To arrive at time frame within which R.O. plants are
commenced and completed in consultation with
industries, their consultants and suppliers.
(2) To consult with the expert committee constituted by
this court earlier or any member thereof on what
measurable required to achieve zero discharge and
eliminate pollutants in the effluent through adoption
of clean production measures.
(3) To monitor the implementation of reverse osmosis
plants and related facilities to deal with R.O.
rejects.
(4) To inspect the industries, IETPs and CETPs at
periodic intervals with or without prior notice and
report to this court on the progress made.
The said Committee also submitted the reports from time to
time. The High Court has passed the impugned order after
considering the aforesaid reports also.
15. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of
India (1996) 3 SCC 212, this Court ruled that once the industrial
activities carried out are found to be hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activities are liable to
make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity
18
irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while
carrying out his industrial or commercial activities. Therefore,
the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for
the harm caused by it to villagers or other affected persons of the
area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, the
industry is bound to take all necessary measures to prevent
degradation of environment and also to remove sludge and other
pollutants lying in the affected area. As the liability of the
polluter is absolute for harm to the environment it extends not
only to the victims of pollution but also to meet the cost of
restoring the pollution free environment.
16. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR
1996 SC 2715; this Court considered various constitutional
provisions including Articles 47, 48-A, 51-A(g) and came to the
conclusion that it is the duty of the State to protect and preserve
the ecology, as Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty and every person has a
right to pollution free atmosphere. Therefore, the “precautionary
principle” and the “polluter-pays” principle have been accepted
19
as a part of the law of the land being the part of environmental
law of the country.
17. Similar view has been reiterated in People’s Union for Civil
Liberties vs. Union of India and Another (1997) 3 SCC 433; AP
Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812;
and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 142, observing
that environment and ecology are national assets. They are
subject to inter-generational equity. The sustainable
development principle is a part of Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of
the Constitution of India.
18. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2004)12 SCC 118,
this Court explained the scope of “precautionary principle”
observing that it requires anticipatory action to be taken to
prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable
suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct
evidence of harm to the environment. The concept of
“sustainable development” has been explained that it covers the
development that meets the needs of the person without
20
compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their
own needs. It means the development, that can take place and
which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without
mitigation. Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is
that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to
be decided in public interest, according to a “reasonable
person’s” test. The development of the industries, irrigation
resources and power projects are necessary to improve
employment opportunities and generations of revenue; therefore,
cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has to be
struck, for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go, there
may be irreparable damage to the environment and there may be
irreparable damage to the economic interest.
A Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in T.N.
Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC
222; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC
142.
21
19. In case in spite of stringent conditions, degradation of
environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, the
court may consider the closure of industrial activities in areas
where there is such a risk. The authorities also have to take into
consideration the macro effect of wide scale land and
environmental degradation caused by absence of remedial
measures. The right to information and community participation
for protection of environment and human health is also a right
which flows from Article 21 (vide Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others; AIR 2006
SC 1489; T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad vs. UOI and Others
(2002) 10 SCC 606; Research Foundation for Science Technology
Natural Resource Policy vs. UOI & Ors (2005) 10 SCC 510; N.D.
Jayal & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 867; M.C. Mehta vs.
Kamal Nath AIR 2002 SC 1515; Mrs. Susetha vs. State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2893).
20. The correctness of the impugned order is to be tested
on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. This
22
Court vide order dated 18.5.2007 stayed the impugned order of
the High Court only to the extent that the directions to close
down the industries would not be given effect to from 31.7.2007.
This Order has been extended from time to time. On 10 th
August, 2007, this Court directed the members of the petitioners’
association to deposit a sum of Rs.25 crores within a period of
six weeks before the High Court and further to file an affidavit as
what progress has been made in respect of the CETPs and
treatment plants. This Court vide order dated 12.5.09, directed
the Board to inspect the Noyyal River and find out whether any
pollution is caused by the factories owned by the members of the
appellant Association and file a report on or before 27.7.09.
21. The Inspection Committee constituted by the Board made
following observations during inspections on 8.7.2009 and
9.7.2009:
(A) There is no flow of surface water in the upstream
side of Agrahara Puthur road bridge (S1) across the
Noyyal River and it was found dry during inspection
on 8.7.2009 and 9.7.2009 with isolated ponding of
small quantity of water.
23
(B) Flow of water was observed in Noyyal River at the
stretch of Tiruppur Town where Bleaching and
Dyeing units are located and downstream at
Orathupalayam Dam.
(C) Along with the primary treated effluent from existing
bleaching and dyeing units, domestic effluent from
Tiruppur Corporation [Formerly Tiruppur
Municipality], Nallur Municipality and other villages
located along the banks of Noyyal River is
discharged into Noyyal River, which also contributes
to the flow in the River and organic pollution load.
(D) In the entire stretch of Noyyal River falling in the
jurisdiction of Tiruppur Corporation and Nallur
Municipality, Municipal Solid wastes are being
dumped along the River itself, which also
contributes to the pollution load in Noyyal.
The impact of industrial pollution on river is revealed by the
presence of high pH (alkalinity), very high Total Dissolved solids
(TDS), excess chloride (C1 ) and percent sodium (%Na). Also
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) are not at an acceptable level. Moreover, the
dark red colour of the water in the River Noyyal, was seen during
inspection.
24
22. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.07.09,
the said Inspection Committee again inspected the 17 CETPs in
Tirupur during 3.8.2009 and 4.8.2009 and submitted the Report.
The 17 CETPs had paid only Rs. 17,22,46,031/- (Rupees
seventeen crores twenty two lacs forty six thousands and thirty
one only) as against Rs.55,60,96,848/- (Rupees fifty five crores
sixty lacs ninty six thousands eight hundred and forty eight
only). This total sum has been arrived at on the basis of number
of working days multiplied by the daily consented
quantity/applied quantity of effluent of member units, leaving a
balance to be remitted as Rs.38,38,50,817/- (Rupees thirty eight
crores thirty eight lacs fifty thousands eight hundred and
seventeen only). The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.25
crores in the High Court of Madras as per the direction of this
Court dated 10.8.2007.
23. Some of the member units of the CETPs have obtained the
consent of the Board in accordance with law. Some of them have
applied to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board for consent,
25
but consent was not issued to them in view of the provisions of
the G.O.Ms.No.213 Environment and Forests (EC-1) Department
dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms. No.127.
24. With regard to the technical aspect, Inspection
Committee submitted that among the 17 CETPs, 11 CETPs have
completed 90% to 97% works relating to the ZLD system. The
remaining minor works to be completed related to the
establishment of an adequate Solar Evaporation Pan area,
considering the evaporation rate as 4.5 mm per sq.m. per day.
The other 3 CETPs have completed above 90% of the works
relating to the ZLD system. The remaining works to be
completed related to the establishment of adequate Solar
Evaporation Pan area and loading of the membranes into the RO
module, etc.
25. The remaining 3 CETPs have completed below 80% of work
relating to the ZLD systems. The remaining percentage of works
26
to be completed relates to the establishment of adequate Solar
Evaporation Pan area, Boiler, Crystallizer, loading of the
membranes into the RO module, etc.
26. In view of the above fact that this matter is pending
before this Court for more than two and a half years and the
members of the appellant Association had been permitted to
continue their business, it is desirable that the members of the
appellant Association should ensure the compliance of all the
directions including the payment of dues etc. issued by the Court
within a period of three months from today. They shall ensure
that no pollution is caused to the river or dam and if cleaning
operation has not yet been completed, it shall be completed
within the said stipulated period.
27. Undoubtedly, there has been unabated pollution by the
members of the appellant Association. They cannot escape the
responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the ecology.
They are bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge of
27
the river and also for cleaning the dam. The principles of
“polluters-pay” and “precautionary principle” have to be read
with the doctrine of “sustainable development”. It becomes the
responsibility of the members of the appellant Association that
they have to carry out their industrial activities without polluting
the water. A large number of farmers have suffered because of
the pollution caused by them. They could not cultivate any crop
in the said land. The committee had made a complete survey and
assessed the loss and identified the families which are entitled to
compensation. This Court only stayed the operation of the
direction of the High Court to the extent that the units of the
members of the appellant Association would be closed on 31st
July, 2007. The said interim order has been extended from time
to time. None of the other directions have been interfered with.
A period of more than two and a half year has been passed.
Many steps have been taken but the Association has to ensure
the compliance of the orders passed by the High Court fully and
in order to do, it is desirable that the Association be giving three
months time to ensure compliance of directions to make the
CETPs functional and pay the balance amount for cleaning the
28
dam and river and meet the compensation to the adversely
affected persons within a period of three months from today. The
Pollution Control Board is directed to ensure that no pollution is
caused, giving strict adherence, to the statutory provisions.
28. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
……………………………….CJI.
(K.G. Balakrishnan)
……………………………….
….J.
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan)
New Delhi;
October 6, 2009.
29