National Green Tribunal
Poultry Farmers And Breeders ... vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item Nos. 01&02 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No.887/2022
National Egg Coordination Committee Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
WITH
Original Application No.888/2022
Poultry Farmers and Breeders Association Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 16.12.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Dutta & Mr.
S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocates for Applicant in OA 887/2022
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Khattar, Advocate
for Applicant in OA 888/2022
ORDER
1. Both these applications have been filed in light of observations in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2022 in Civil Appeal Diary No(s).1304/2022, the Poultry Farmers and Breeders Association vs. Gauri Maulekhi & Ors. which is as follows:-
1"1. Permission to file the Civil Appeals granted.
2 The principal grievance which has been urged on behalf of the appellants by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel with Mr Arijit Prasad, is that neither when it passed the first order dated 16 September 2020 nor when it passed the second order of 10 December 2021 did the National Green Tribunal have before it the representatives of the poultry farms who are affected by the directions.
3. Since admittedly the appellants were not before the NGT and having regard to the above grievance, we grant liberty to the appellants to move the NGT with an appropriate application for modification of the directions which have been issued. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of such an application and the above liberty has been granted in order to obviate the grievance of the appellants that they were not furnished an opportunity of being heard. The rights and contentions of all the parties before the NGT in that regard are kept open.
4. In the event that the appellants are aggrieved by the order of the NGT, they would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law, including on the grounds which have been set out in the Civil Appeals."
2. We may note that contrary to representation made before Hon'ble Supreme Court that representatives of poultry farms were not before the Tribunal when the matter was dealt with by it, association of poultry farms was very much represented before the Tribunal and its view point was duly addressed as noted in paras 9 and 10 of order of the Tribunal dated 16.9.2020, which is quoted in later part of this order.
3. Further, instead of availing of liberty to move an application for modification of orders of the Tribunal in the proceedings earlier dealt with, the applicants have filed independent OAs under sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, more than nine months after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are strictly speaking not maintainable, the said remedy being available to victims of violation of environmental norms.
Inspite of this, we have considered the matter on merits and heard learned Counsel for the applicants at length and proceed to deal with the same.
24. As the record would show, the Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was against orders of this Tribunal dated 16.09.2020 in OA No. 681/2017, Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India & Ors. and 10.12.2021 in OA No. 320/2021, Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India & Ors. Order dated 16.09.2020 considered a grievance against inadequacy of consent regime as per CPCB Guidelines dated 20.10.2015 by which consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was required only for poultry farm handling more than 1 lakh birds at a single location.
Poultry farms with more than 5,000 birds were required to be registered with local bodies without any consent under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Commercial poultry farms were categorized as 'Green' industries by CPCB as per its order dated 29.02.2016. Grievance was that to give effect to 'Sustainable Development' and 'Precautionary' principles of Environmental Law laid down inter alia under section 20 of the NGT Act, there has to be effective regulatory regime having regard to potential for huge damage to the environment and public health by unregulated activities of such farms.
The applicants relied upon literature in support of their case. The Tribunal sought response of the CPCB and on consideration found that guidelines issued for categorizing poultry farms as green and exempting their regulation from consent regime violated the sustainable development and precautionary principles. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed under section 15 of the NGT Act that the policy be revisited and till fresh order was passed, all poultry farms having above 5000 birds will be governed by consent mechanism applicable to farms having more than 1 lakh birds after 01.01.2021.
5. Since guidelines issued by the CPCB in March, 2021, in pursuance of above orders were alleged to be still inadequate, O.A No. 320/2021 was 3 filed which was dealt with by Order dated 10.12.2021. The Tribunal found merit in the grievance and issued directions requiring all poultry farms above 5000 birds to be brought under the consent regime.
6. We may now quote some extracts from earlier orders of this Tribunal :-
Order dated 16.09.2020 "xxx ......................................xxx.....................................xxx
4. Poultry farms cause extensive pollution to the areas that surround them. As poultry farms have thousands of birds in intensive confinement in each farm, the level of waste is high.
This waste is seldom disposed of scientifically, in accordance with law. Pests such as flies, ticks, lice, mites, maggots, scavenging birds and even stray dogs are routinely attracted to the poultry farms. There is an intense odor that emanates from these farms which affects the entire neighborhood and is a source of blatant nuisance.
5. The built up fecal matter in the battery cage facilities makes for an environmental hazard and a health hazard for both people and the birds which are constantly exposed to pathogens. In order to keep these birds alive in such intensive and filthy environs, the poultry farm owners regularly administer non-therapeutic antibiotics. The administration of these non-therapeutic antibiotics causes antibiotic resistance in the human beings who consume eggs or meat of such birds.
6. Poultry farms impact the ecology and standard of living of those who surround the farms. Pests which are attracted to the farms make it difficult for the people living in the vicinity to such farms to eat, work or to perform their day-to- day activities. There are several instances where poultry farms situated near various establishments have made it difficult for the residents of those establishments to live normal lives.
7. In support of its averments, the applicant has relied upon several Newspaper and other Articles, article published on 07.05.2017 in "The Tribune" titled 'Children can't eat, study here, courtesy houseflies- Poultry Farm adjacent to Zirakpur school makes their stay miserable, an article published on 29.04.2011 in "The Hindu" titled "Unhygienic conditions in poultry farms result in fly menace", an article published in "The Indian Express" on 01.07.2016 titled "Flies in the face of a Karnal village", an article published in Poultry, Fisheries and Wildlife sciences, volume 1, issue 1 titled "Environmental Impacts of Poultry Production" and an article published in "Indian Journal of Community Medicine"
4titled "Association of Poultry Farms with Housefly and Morbidity: A comparative Study from Raipur Rani, Haryana".
In short, findings in the said articles are that breeding of houseflies takes place in the poultry farms in the dumped waste. Poor manure management is not only a major cause of pollution of soil and water but it is also a source of highly offensive odor and houseflies and is capable of affecting the life of people living in the vicinity. Extensive use of antibiotics on regular basis adversely affects health of the persons living around the farms, in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Antibiotic resistance has become a big issue as per several studies, a National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR) 2017-2021, a study of Antibiotic Resistance in Poultry Environment, Spread of Resistance from Poultry Farm to Agricultural Field, a study dated 20.07.2017 done by Bloomberg1 article titled "Indian Poultry Farms Are Breeding Drug Resistant Superbugs" by Natalie Obiko Pearson, highlights that the Indian poultry farms have become a breeding ground for drug resistant superbugs, a study dated 20.07.2017 titled 'The Prevalence of Extended - Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia Coli in Poultry Chickens and variation according to farming practices in Punjab, India, a report on "Environmental Status of Some Poultry Farms in India" by CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Delhi Zonal Centre, Ministry of Science and Technology and 269th Law Commission Report on Transportation and House-keeping of egg-laying hens (layers) and broiler chickens dated July, 2017. Further, reference has been made to the report by CSIR-National Environment Engineering Research Institute ('NEERI') titled 'Environmental Status of Some Poultry Farms in India', recommending cage free farming for hygienic environment.
8. The decision of the CPCB exempting the poultry farms with less than one lakh birds from registration with the Pollution Control Boards under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act, 1981) and Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act, 1974) has been questioned as not being conducive to the clean environment which is part of right to life. The exemption is hit by 'sustainable development' concept to be enforced by this Tribunal under Section 20 read with Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is submitted that poultry farms are a source of odor, attract flies, rodents and other pests that carry disease. The emissions therefrom include gases like ammonia, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) that affect the life of the people living in that vicinity. The poultry farms use large quantity of pesticides 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/poultry-farms-in-india- resemble-superbug-reservoirs-study-
finds#:~:text=Indian%20poultry%20farms%20aren't,most%20potent%20antibiotics%2 C%20researchers%20found.&text=Of%20tested%20birds%20destined%20for,journal% 20Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives%20showed 5 and antibiotics in their feeds that contaminate the soil and ground water thereby compromising public health. The reports show that unregulated poultry farming causes pollution of soil and groundwater. The intensive battery cage factory farming facilities pose unacceptable risks to public health and the environment. The studies show that the crowded, stressful and unsanitary conditions of these facilities give rise to disease, including avian influenza. Use of antibiotics is so rampant that they are being administered as a precautionary measure rather than as a last resort in the case of medical needs. Misuse of antibiotics in poultry farms is leading to multi-drug resistant bacteria, which is spreading into the environment through unsafe disposal of poultry litter and waste in agricultural fields, with the potential of spreading drug resistant infections to humans. Giving of non-therapeutic antibiotics in poultry farms is leading to drug resistance amongst the consumers of such meat and eggs and is causing tremendous financial loss to the nation. Non-therapeutic antibiotics are only needed to be given in poultry farms because the housing conditions of birds in poultry farms are so unhygienic. If better and more hygienic cage free methods of farming were utilized, as recommended by NEERI-CISR, then there would be no need to administer non-therapeutic antibiotics to the animals. The only way to ensure cleanliness is to give the animals space and keep the facilities clean. Unhygienic conditions in the poultry industry is a major health hazards for both humans and animals and has serious negative implications on the animal's health and also on humans who work and live in and near such unhygienic conditions. This certainly calls for effective regulation and not exempting regulatory mechanism provided for such farms with more than one lac birds.
9. The application was filed on 07.11.2017. On 13.11.2017 the Tribunal issued notice to Respondents, including MoEF&CC, CPCB and Central Drug Standard Control Organization. M.A. No. 1049/2018 was filed by an association of poultry farms for being party which was rejected on 25.07.2018. However, in the light of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9154 of 2018, the said association was permitted to intervene.
10. Response has been filed by the CPCB. In the said reply no justification has been shown as to why poultry farms with less than one lakhs birds have been exempted from the ambit of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. However, it is stated that the use of antibiotics is an issue under the purview of Animal Husbandry and the Drug Control and Food Safety Departments. Reply filed by the MoEF&CC also does not in any manner give any justification for the impugned action. The reply of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also does not deal with the issue except to state that use of antibiotics is governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Antibiotic Policy of the Ministry. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ('FSSAI') has also filed a counter affidavit which does not deal with the central issue, except to say that standards have been laid down for various types of foods. The association of poultry farmers have highlighted the importance of eggs and 6 poultry and need for antibiotics. It is stated that the poultry farms are established far away from the residential areas and, thus, residents are not affected by the activities of the poultry farms. Such activities help the rural areas by providing jobs and source of livelihood. Cheap source of protein is provided by eggs and chickens. A copy of Notification dated 29.04.2019 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has been placed on record which deals with responsibilities of the poultry farm owners to comply with the rules as per given environmental conditions for the welfare of layer hens which require registration with the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Farming. Ministry of Animal Husbandry has also filed an affidavit to the effect that PILs are pending before the Delhi High Court on the subject of compliance of the provisions of the prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder.
11. xxx .................................xxx......................................xxx
12. Main contention on behalf of the applicant is that unregulated disposal of waste and operation of poultry farms is detrimental to the environment. Waste generated in the natural course on account of fecal matter etc. harms the environment unless safeguards are adopted and use of pests antibiotics has great potential for diseases among the animals and the humans as mentioned in the study undertaken by the NEERI, referred to above and observations made by the Law Commission in its 269th Report. Thus, leaving the field of poultry farm below one lakhs birds unregulated is failure to protect environment, as required under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. Mere requirement for poultry farms with more than 5000 birds to register with the local bodies could be no substitute for the said statutory regulation nor CPCB has any statutory Authority to delegate its powers to the local bodies. The categorization of poultry industry as green by the MoEF&CC is also arbitrary and not based on any logic. Reference has been made to the report of the NEERI as follows:-
"Poultry production is associated with a variety of environmental pollutants, including oxygen-demanding substance, ammonia, solids, besides the poultry attracts flies, rodents, dogs and other pest that create local nuisances and carry diseases. Poor management of manure, litter and waste water etc. adversely affects the living in the vicinity. Odour is generated for fresh and decomposed waste products such as manures, carcasses, feathers and bedding litter. Furthermore, intensive poultry production may be responsible for green houses gasses, acidification and eutrophication."
13. It was submitted non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and anti-microbial resistance to keep birds alive, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions build up drug-resistant bacteria in the birds which transmits to the consumers to the poultry products.
714. In view of such serious ramifications and potential for deteriorating the environment, it is imperative that the CPCB reconsiders this Policy and require applicability of consent mechanism under the Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974, instead of exempting it. Reliance has been placed on an order of this Tribunal dated 08.07.2019 in O.A. No. 46/2018, Nuggehalli Jayasimha vs. Government of NCT of Delhi dealing with compliance of environmental norms by dairies. The Tribunal directed the DPCC to perform its responsibility under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 of enforcing environmental norms against the dairies, rejecting the plea that there is provision in the Municipal laws to address the issue. The Tribunal held that overlapping provisions in the Municipal laws do not discharge the environmental authorities of their statutory responsibilities.
15. xxx .................................xxx......................................xxx
16. On due consideration of the matter, we find substance in the submissions of the applicant. Sustainable development is part of right to life.2 The State Authorities are under obligation to protect environment as per sustainable development concept. Responsibilities of the States to the environment are by Public Trust Doctrine3. The Water Act, the Air Act, and the Environment (Protection) Act have been enacted in the wake of international conventions and override all other legislations. They create obligation on the regulatory authorities to enforce the environmental measures. There is no discretion to exempt the mandate of mandate of Water Act for activities having potential to cause water pollution4. It has not been disputed that the operation of poultry farms has potential to damage to the environment which needs to be regulated. Leaving out poultry farms below one lakh birds unregulated by the State PCB and merely requiring registration with the local bodies or treating them at par with the agricultural farms will be against the mandate of sustainable development, which principle is to be enforced by this Tribunal. Likewise, in view of pollution potential in operation of poultry farms except small ones, say upto 5000 birds cannot fall in the 'Green' category as has been done by the CPCB."
Extracts from order dated 10.12.2021 "xxx .....................................xxx....................................xxx
4. Only reason for the above change from Guidelines proposed in August, 2021 is that poultry farms upto 25000 birds are small and in unorganized sector. The said observations in the guidelines are quoted below:
"4.0 Classification of Poultry Farms 2 (1996) 5 SCC 647 Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. UOI 3 1997 (1) SCC 388 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath 4 (1999) 2 SCC 718 & (2001) 2 SCC 62 A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.8
Backyard poultry is typically owned by small and marginal farmer and comprises of few birds, largely for self- consumption and very small quantities get commercially sold. The poultry farming practiced by the rural and tribal farmers under free range or backyard or semi-intensive systems is usually referred to as rural poultry farming.
Based on the number of handling of birds, Poultry farms may be classified into three categories.
Small (5,000-25,000 bird) Medium (above 25,000-1,00,000 birds).
Large (above 1,00,000 birds) The poultry farms under small category are in un- organized sector run by economically weaker farmers and are of rural background"
5. We have heard Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate, who submitted that there is no justification for exempting poultry farms below 25000 birds even after this Tribunal held that all poultry farms above 5000 birds were required to be brought under the consent mechanism and even after proposing such regulation in March 2021 guidelines, based on expert study, as noted earlier. Observation that poultry farms with less than 25000 birds are run by small farmers in unorganized sector is untenable and against the Precautionary Principle of environmental law, as already held by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.09.2020, referred to above, that regulation of all poultry farms beyond 5000 birds is necessary. To this extent, decision of CPCB being against the decision of this Tribunal and against precautionary principle. A person running poultry farm of more than 5000 birds cannot be said to be small farmer nor their pollution potential left unregulated. At best some time can be given for regulation in phased manner as proposed in March, 2021 proposed Guidelines. Accordingly, we direct that while the impugned guidelines be immediately enforced, all poultry farms above 5000 birds will also be covered by the said guidelines latest from 1.1.2023. The siting criteria should apply to all consents/renewals hereafter for the above size of the poultry farms. CPCB may issue revised guidelines to all the State PCBs/PCCs in terms of the above order within one month."
7. As shown above, the Tribunal did consider the stand of the Association Poultry Farms in M.A. No. 1049/2018 in pursuance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9154 of 2018.
8. However, in view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2022, we have heard learned Counsel for the Applicants.
9Contention raised on behalf of the Applicant in O.A. No. 887/2022 is that poultry farms below 35000-40000 birds are not commercially viable and any requirement of consent will adversely affect their business as well as availability of eggs and meat.
9. We are unable to accept the submission. As already held by the Tribunal, which we reiterate, poultry farms with more than 5000 birds can certainly result in causing environmental and public health issues warranting bringing them under consent regime for regulation and oversight of compliance of environmental norms. There can be no objection to such poultry farms being run on scientific basis with requisite safeguards against damage to the environment. In view of potential for damage to environment and public health, the same could not have been categorized as green, leaving such activity unregulated from environmental point of view.
10. In O.A. No. 888/2022, it is submitted that CPCB Regime which has been interfered by this Tribunal was based on its Expert studies that there was no water pollution and air pollution was insignificant. We note that such opinion cannot be taken as conclusive when potential for adverse effect on environment and public health is well known. It is not possible to accept the view that there is no water pollution in operation of the poultry farms with less than 5000 birds or the air pollution caused can be ignored. The 'Precautionary' principle requires anticipatory action against potential for pollution and to err on the right side of environment even if two views are possible. In this regard, we may also refer to the Environmental Guidelines issued by CPCB in 2021 which specify the environmental issues involved in operation of poultry farms as follows:-
"5.0 Environmental issues & Current practices to address the environmental issues in Poultry Farms 10 Environmental nuisance arising from poultry farms is due to the generation of NH3 & H2S gases causing odor, dust from feed mill, storage & management of Solid Waste (Manure, Dead Birds and Hatchery Waste) also causing odour & water from cleaning operations. Breeding of flies and rodents etc. are the other issues in poultry farms.
(i) Gaseous emission (NH3 & H2S) and Feed Mill Dust The gaseous emission viz Ammonia (NH3) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) are emanated from the excreta generated from the birds causes odour. The odour is produced due to anaerobic conditions in the litter occurs due to its storage at one place for longer period. The general practice followed by poultry farms to control odour is by maintaining good ventilation and free flow of air.
Dust is generated from the feed mill operation during mixing and grinding of various ingredients of feed. The feed mill operations are typically located inside the mill buildings. Dust extraction systems are generally used to collect the dust and to improve the shop floor environment.
(ii) Solid Waste Sources of solid waste are (i) Poultry droppings/Manure/Litter (ii) Dead Birds & (iii) Hatchery Waste.
In case of cage system, excreta are collected just below the bird cages directly on ground, made of stone slabs or concrete or impermeable compacted clay. Litter is collected and kept dry by maintaining good ventilation and free air flow to undergo aerobic composting. The manure is removed once in four to six months & sold to the farmers. In deep litter system, excreta are collected in bed made up of agro residue (rice husk, saw dust, groundnut hulls, wood shavings, and dried leaves) itself. Once in a day or two days the bed is scratched for mixing of litter. Once the chicken is sold for meat, the bed (rice husk, saw dust, groundnut hulls, wood shavings, and dried leaves) is removed once the cycle of 42 to 45 days gets over along with the excreta and sold as manure. The shed is washed and lime is applied as disinfectant and allows the area for quarantine period.
Death of the birds in poultry farms is a common phenomenon and their disposal is an issue. Dead birds cause nuisance, odour and aesthetic problems like disease, insect, rodent and predator problems if the birds are not disposed immediately. Dead birds are either burned at relatively high temperatures using different fuels which causing atmospheric pollution and also odour nuisance or buried in the burial pit in the premises.
During hatching operation, large quantity of solid waste comprising of egg shells, unhatched eggs, dead embryos and chickens and a viscous liquid from eggs etc is generated. This 11 waste is disposed through open burning or through rendering plant.
(iii) Waste water generation from cleaning operation Water in poultry farms is used for drinking of birds, sprinkling during the summer and for cleaning sheds and equipment in between batch replacement.
As such there is no process waste water generation from the poultry farming. However, wastewater is generated during cleaning operations. The waste water is collected in holding tank and utilized in gardening in the premises
(iv) Other issues:
Breeding of flies and rodents, etc. are the other issues in poultry farms"
11. In view of above, there is no merit in the contention that farms with less than 5000 birds do not require any regulation as their activities are benign.
12. We also do not find any merit in the contention that owners of poultry farms with less than 25,000 birds belong to economically weaker sections. Apart from such claim being unsubstantiated, economic status is not conclusive to need for regulation when environment hazards are caused warranting be regulation in the interest of environment and public health.
13. Further, we do not find any merit in the objection that existing units cannot be covered by the siting guidelines in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2021, Tejinder Kumar Jolly & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.5 laying down as follows:
"10. The main stand of the respondents before the NGT is that they are old units operating since 1985 and they should not be forced to relocate because of the later developments.5
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 1077 12
11. In like cases of pre-existing industrial units, the NGT in O.A. NO.
123/2014 (Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has pertinently declared the following:
"the environmental laws are laws enacted for the benefit of public at large. They are socio-beneficial legislation enacted to protect the environment for the benefit of the public at large. It is in discharge of their constitutional obligation that such laws have been enacted by the parliament or by other authorities in furtherance to the power of delegated legislation wasted in them. These legislations and directives are incapable of being compared to the legislation in the field of taxation or criminal jurisprudence. These laws have been enacted to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. Thus, the contention that the existing mining mine holders would not be required to comply with the requirements of environmental laws, cannot be accepted. To illustratively examine this aspect, we may take hypothetical situation, not far from reality. An industrial unit which had been established and operationalized prior to 1974, 1981 and/or 1986, was granted permission under the laws in force and the unit owner had made heavy investment in making the unit operational. The Water Act came into force in 1974, Air Act in 1981 and Environment Protection Act in 1986. All these acts deal with existing units as well as units which are to be established in future. These laws granted time to the existing units to take all anti-pollution measures and obtain the consent of the respective pollution control boards to continue its operation. Failure to do so, could invite penal action including, closure of industry under these acts. The said units should not be permitted to contend that since it was an existing unit, it has earned a right to pollute the environment and cause environmental pollution, putting the life of the others at risks, on the ground that it was an existing unit and was operating in accordance with law. Such a contention, if raised, would have to be notice only to be rejected. Similarly, these Notifications or Office Memorandums, having been issued under the environmental laws, would equally apply to the existing industries as well. The directions contained in these notifications and office memorandums which are otherwise valid, would equally operate to the existing mines as well as the newly undertaken mining activities."
20. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that public interest would warrant action against polluting units. This is equally applicable to those industrial units which have been functioning since long. Adherence to the environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised for factual misunderstandings or due to cryptic determination. Orders which have direct repercussions on the right to clean environment must surely be the outcome of careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation, as per the applicable facts. The NGT was required to address the grievance on the adverse health impacts on local populace by the stone crushers. The Tribunal itself had recognized that orders were necessary to resolve the issue. The factual determination had reflected the need to ensure heightened compliance with the environmental norms for the concerned area. On 13.01.2015 in the related O.A. No. 123 of 2014 (Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan), the Tribunal made 13 it clear that even the pre-existing units must fall in line. As noted before, the subsequent O.A. 449/2019 was ordered to be registered for consideration of the report requisitioned by the NGT itself. It was also clarified that the O.A. 449/2019 was based upon the Report furnished to the Tribunal. In this backdrop, the action needed on the Report, should have been indicated. At the very least, the Tribunal would be expected to ascertain whether substantial compliance of its earlier orders was made by the two stone crushing units of the respondents."
14. In view of above, even after giving further consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Poultry Farms Associations, we do not find any ground to modify the earlier orders on the subject.
The applications are dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM December 16, 2022 Original Application No.887/2022 SN 14