National Green Tribunal
Uttam Manohar Mokal vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2025
Item No.9 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2024 (WZ)
[EARLIER DIARY NO.2704105006962024]
Uttam Manohar Mokal
.....Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
....Respondents
Date of hearing: 15.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Maitreya Ghorpade, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/Envt. Deptt.
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with
Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-2/MPCB
Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocate for R-4/PP.
ORDER
1. We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 14.11.2024, 20.01.2025, 07.03.2025 and 16.06.2025.
2. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 14.07.2025 to the Joint Committee Report dated 01.03.2025 and Affidavits-in-Reply filed by Respondents Nos.2 & 4.
3. As regards the reply affidavit of Respondent No.4- M/s Karamveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Distillery Division), it is submitted in the rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that Respondent No.4- Project Proponent has admitted discharging the effluent on the land in question. Even the Joint Committee has observed that effluent, Page 1 of 12 generated by the Project Proponent, has been discharged on the land and that no conclusive rebuttal of such observations and findings of the Joint Committee Report has been submitted on record by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee in para no.2.21 of its report has clearly observed that "the sugar unit found violating conditions of the consent and discharging highly concentrated wastewater on the land which can be one of the potential source for the ground water pollution of the area." In response thereto, the Project Proponent has stated that "The incidents highlighted in the report are isolated cases".
4. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that the Joint Committee has clearly observed in its report in para 2.11.6 that out of the total land of 144 acres, only 26 acres of land, which belong to the Project Proponent, are being used for cultivation. Therefore, the Project Proponent cannot claim that the effluent is being discharged for the purpose of agricultural irrigation, as there is no cultivation being done on the vast majority of the lands owned by the Project Proponent. In response thereto, Respondent No.4- Project Proponent has stated that "relevant entries in the revenue records (7/12 extract) of the land should also be considered". However, no such revenue records or any other document evidencing cultivation by it on any area exceeding, what has been identified by the Joint Committee, has been placed on record. Thus, the said submission of Respondent No.4 is liable to be rejected. The Corporate Veil must be lifted in the present case, as the Distillery Unit and the Sugar Unit are governed by the same Governing Body.
5. In regard to the above, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgment dated 06.05.1996 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and Anr. [1996 SCC (4) 622], wherein it has Page 2 of 12 been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Company defrauding others in deliberate disobedience of Supreme Court's orders, Supreme Court has power to make appropriate orders in the contempt proceedings to grant relief to the persons aggrieved in order to do complete justice. For this purpose, Court can lift the corporate veil of the company. Directions can be issued against the real contemners behind the veil, in addition to order of punishment for the contempt, to restore the illegally derived benefit to the persons defrauded so that the contemners may not be able to retain the fruits of the contempt".
6. Having relied on the above ruling, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that in the case in hand, since the owner of the Distillery Unit and the Sugar Unit is one and the same i.e. Respondent No.4 and that the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4 is not impleaded in the present Original Application, no benefit can be allowed to the said Respondent and if any violation is found to have been caused by the Sugar Unit, Respondent No.4, in the case in hand, can be held accountable under the above ruling.
7. In regard to the above submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, we do not agree, particularly, in view of the fact that only the Distillery Unit has been impleaded in the present Original Application and not the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4. Even though, the management of both Units is one and the same and Respondent No.4 has been granted separate Consent to Operate by the MPCB, which is annexed at page no.287 of the paper book for the Sugar Unit and at page no.298 of the paper book for the Distillery Unit.
8. Since the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4 has not been impleaded in the present Original Application, at all, any observation, which has been Page 3 of 12 given in the case in hand by the Joint Committee, would be treated to be exceeding its scope. Although in this regard, we may make it clear here that in case the applicant wants to seek relief against the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4 as well, separate proceeding should be filed because the reply affidavits of all the Respondents have already come on record and is matured for final arguments. Therefore, whatever has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit of the applicant pertaining to the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4 need not be taken into consideration by us.
9. As regards the reply affidavit dated 14.06.2025 of Respondent No.2- MPCB, it is submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that the Respondent Board had issued directions to Respondent No.4 (Distillery Unit) vide letter dated 11/4/2023, which is annexed at page nos.519-520 of the paper book and directed it to submit the Environmental Compensation of Rs.39.30 Lakhs, however, Respondent No.4 has not deposited the same with MPCB. In this regard, it is submitted that the said directions were issued to Respondent No.4 by the MPCB for the following violations:-
"WHEREAS, this office has issued show cause notice vide referred above No. 2 regarding you have not dismantled Kaccha Lagoon & during visit contaminated water observed in the same and you have dismantled solar pit but same is observed in low line area due to which rain water stored up in the same which is flow through local Nalla with contamination and which is meet to Godavari River and accordingly you have submitted reply vide referred above No. 3 and reported that the scrapping of Kaccha Lagoon and Solar pit will be completed by 31.05.2023. "
10. Having drawn our attention to the above letter, learned counsel for the applicant has made it clear that above directions were issued by Respondent No.2- MPCB to Respondent No.4 with respect to the Kaccha Page 4 of 12 Lagoon not having been dismantled and accumulation of contaminated water having been observed over there etc. and not for the pollution caused to the land belonging to the applicant, which was found to have been contaminated as per the Joint Committee Report. Therefore, the amount of EDC, which has been calculated by Respondent No.2, cannot be said to have been done with respect to the grievance of the applicant.
11. Thereafter, we have heard the argument of learned counsel for Respondent No.4- M/s Karamveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Distillery Division) as well, who has mainly emphasized that right from the beginning, a complaint was made by the applicant pertaining to the composting project of Respondent No.4 and not pertaining to the sugar unit. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the Order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Public Interest Litigation No.135 of 2022 (Uttam Manohar Mokal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), which is annexed at page nos.76-77 of the paper book, wherein Hon'ble High Court in para no.1 has mentioned that the grievance of the Petitioner is about Respondent No.1 (in Hon'ble High Court) releasing untreated sewage water from the compost project. In that Petition, Hon'ble High Court directed that the Petitioner may request the State Pollution Control Board to consider his complaint in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said Public Interest Litigation was disposed of.
12. Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has further submitted that pursuant to the above order of Hon'ble High Court, he was given personal hearing by Respondent No.2- MPCB, Minutes of which are annexed at page nos.78-79 of the paper book and in that also, hearing was made with respect to composting yard only, which is evident from the said Minutes. We find that the same has been mentioned in the Minutes of Page 5 of 12 the personal hearing dated 14.06.2023, which was extended to the applicant on 09.05.2023, which is found to be correct.
13. Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has drawn our attention to page nos.85-86 of the paper book, which was a complaint made by one Mr. Sampat Gawande, who is a farmer from Kolgaonmal, regarding Respondent No.4 causing pollution and it was these documents, which belong to the 3rd party, which have been used by the applicant in the present Original Application, in order to file a case against Respondent No.4. In fact, the Survey Numbers, which are said to have been affected by the allegedly contaminated water emanating from the unit of Respondent No.4 i.e. Gut Nos.190, 191, 194/1, 194/2, 195, 196, 200, 201/1, 201/2, 202, 203, 204/1, 204/2, 205/1, 207, 208 and 209/2 in village of Kolgaon Mal, Taluka- Sinnar, District Nashik, belong to the Respondet-4 and the land close to these sites is said to be belonging to the applicant's brother.
14. Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has drawn our attention to page no.419 of the paper book, which is a reply affidavit of Respondent No.4 dated 30.05.2025, wherein he has stated that the Gat No.210/3 does not belong to the applicant, rather the same belongs to the brother of the applicant called Mr. Raju Manohar Mokal, which is said to have been contaminated by the polluted water.
15. Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has also drawn our attention to page no.270 of the paper book, which is a part of the Joint Committee Report, wherein in para no.2.11, following is recorded:-
"2.11. Total 144-acre land is owned by the factory which is located near the old bio-compost yard which is mainly used for irrigation plantation purposes. The details as provided by the industry is as given.
2.11.1 On 8-acre land bio-compost yard is constructed.Page 6 of 12
2.11.2 57-acres land was earlier used as solar pits to treat the effluent generated from Distillery units & these solar pits were scraped in 2005 and now this land is used for plantation of Bamboo, Mohagani & lemon (25-acre) & agriculture (32-acre).
2.11.3 37-acre land is also used for agricultural purpose like sugarcane.
2.11.4 39.67-acre land is kept ready for plantation of Dahicha, Tag, etc. to increase productivity of soil.
2.11.5 Remaining 2.33-acre land is used for development of associated infrastructure like approach roads, drainage, etc. 2.11.6 Though the industry claimed that 108.67-acre land is used for the cultivation on which the effluent is discharge for the irrigation purpose. However, the time scale images of the Google earth confirmed that cultivation is practiced on around 26 Acre land. It is claimed that the remaining land is under preparation for cultivation."
16. Having drawn our attention to the above, it is urged by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that total 144-acre of land was owned by the factory, which is located near the old bio-compost yard, which is mainly used for irrigation plantation purposes. Break-up of that land is also given above, which shows that 57-acres of land, out of the entire land mentioned above, was earlier used as solar pits to treat the effluent generated from the Distillery units, which were scraped in 2005 and the remaining land is being utilised by Respondent No.4 for sugar unit because the Distillery Unit is ZLD, hence no pollution can be found to have been spread through this Distillery Unit.
17. Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has also drawn our attention to page no.279 of the paper book, which is also part of the Joint Committee Report, wherein mainly our attention is drawn to para no.3.1, wherein it is mentioned "The distillery has achieved ZLD by installing MEE followed by incineration boiler...." Hence, there was no question of any Page 7 of 12 pollution being caused by the said industry. Further, it is mentioned in this report at para no.3.2 that the old bio-compost yard is presently in use to process the press mud of the sugar unit, and the composting activities of distilleries were discontinued in 2018-2019. So, having drawn our attention to these paras, it is urged by him that since the year 2018, ZLD has already been achieved by the Distillery Unit of Respondent No.4 and hence, there is no question of any pollution being caused at the site in question.
18. It is further argued by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that Respondent No.2- MPCB has calculated the amount of EDC for the past violations, allegedly committed by Respondent No.4 (Distillery Unit). Respondent No.2 in their affidavit dated 14.06.2025 has clearly stated that the Board Official visited the distillery unit on 02/12/2024 and observed that the industry has installed a Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) to concentrate spent wash, followed by an incineration boiler for complete treatment and disposal in the year 2018-2019. Before 2018, industry was provided Bio-Methanization, followed by Bio-Composting, which was being used to treat the distillery spent wash and the same was discontinued from the year 2019. As per the Complaint of Shri. Mokal (applicant herein), Board official visited the industry's composting yard on 07/03/2024 and observed that it is utilizing compost yard for manufacturing of organic manure without using spent wash. Thereafter Respondent Board, vide letter dated 02.11.2022, had issued Show Cause Notice to Respondent No.4 (Distillery unit) for violation of consent conditions. Further, the Respondent Board had issued directions vide letter dated 11/04/2023 to Respondent No.4 (Distillery unit) under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Page 8 of 12 1981 and directed to submit the Environment Compensation to the tune of Rs.39.30 Lakhs, which has not been challenged so far at the appropriate Forum. Hence, the same has become final.
19. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has candidly admitted that the above amount of EDC is yet to be deposited by him. He has further submitted that before arriving at the said amount of EDC, hearing was not provided to Respondent No.4 by the MPCB. In this regard, we are of the view that this prayer has become redundant now because the said order has become final, as the same was never challenged before the Appropriate Forum.
20. The cognizance of this matter was first taken up by this Tribunal on 14.11.2024, whereby the Joint Committee was constituted to submit its report in the matter in issue. In compliance with the said order, the Joint Committee has submitted its report, which is annexed at page nos.263 to 281 of the paper book, relevant part of which is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-
"4.0 Findings of the Committee 3.1. The distillery has achieved ZLD by installing MEE followed by incineration boiler. Whereas the treated effluent from the sugar unit is utilised for the irrigation purpose after mixing it with the canal water.
3.2 The old bio-compost yard is presently in use to process the press mud of the sugar unit, and the composting activities of distilleries were discontinued in 2018-19.
3.3 The unit has previously carried out carried out remedial activities for soil & ground water under the guidance of Mahatma Fule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. However, the ground water quality is yet not restored to its original condition.Page 9 of 12
3.4 The groundwater of the area is not suitable for human, or animal consumption. It is used for irrigation only after mixing it with fresh water.
3.5 The sugar unit's Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) does not meet the required standards for safe land application.
3.6 Evidence also indicates that effluent may have been discharged onto factory-owned fields or surrounding areas. The case of excessive application of effluent on land is also evident.
3.7 The unit has not prepared proper irrigation management plan for scientific approach in utilising the sugar effluent in irrigation.
4.0 Recommendations 4.1 Fresh comprehensive technical study should be conducted through an expert institution to assess the extent of groundwater contamination, identify potential sources, and recommend appropriate remedial actions.
4.2 The services of an expert agriculture institute should be engaged to evaluate the impact of contaminated ground water on crops of the farmers.
4.3 Considering the existing contamination and shallow groundwater levels, the unit shall be allowed to use treated effluent for irrigation in this area only after completion of the above suggested comprehensive technical study.
4.4 MPCB can be asked to take stringent action for the poor status of the effluent treatment system and non-compliance found during the visit. Appropriate compensation can be imposed for mishandling of sugar effluent and not achieving the desired degree of treatment for the sugar effluent.
4.5 Unit should be asked to establish a long-term groundwater monitoring program, with periodic sampling and analysis to assess the effectiveness of corrective measures and prevent further contamination.
4.6 The industry should be asked to prepare proper irrigation management plan for utilisation of the treated sugar effluent.Page 10 of 12
4.7 The industry should be required to install a metering system to monitor water usage from stone quarries and maintain its records."
21. The objections, which have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant as well as that of learned counsel for Respondent No.4 have already been considered above by us and found that whatever has been noted therein pertaining to the Sugar Unit cannot be taken into consideration by us. With respect to the Distillery Unit of Respondent No.4, we find that already ZLD has been achieved by it and this fact has been admitted by learned counsel for the applicant as well. The MPCB has calculated the amount of EDC only for the violations to the effect that Respondent No.4 had not dismantled Kaccha lagoon and that during their visit, contaminated water was observed and that Respondent No.4 has not dismantled solar pits, as they were found in low lying area, which could have led to pollution in the local nalla, which meets the Godavari River. For this violation, total amount of EDC to the tune of Rs.39.30 Lakhs has been calculated by the MPCB, which has not been deposited by Respondent No.4 so far. Therefore, we direct Respondent No.4 to deposit the said amount of EDC with the MPCB within one month from the date of uploading of this order. This amount shall be utilized by the MPCB for restoration/improvement of the area in question within six months thereafter.
22. We further direct, in terms of the recommendation made by the Joint Committee at 4.2, that the services of an expert agriculture institute be engaged to evaluate the impact of contaminated ground water on crops of the farmers. In this regard, a study shall be conducted by the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, which had earlier also carried out the remedial activities in this regard, within a period of six months from the Page 11 of 12 date of uploading of this matter and recommendations of the study shall be carried out. This activity shall be financed by Respondent No.4. A report of the said Committee along-with actions taken shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Tribunal within three months thereafter.
23. With the above direction, we dispose of the present Original Application accordingly.
24. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
25. Liberty is also granted to the applicant that in case he wants to seek any relief with respect to Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4, he may move a separate application, subject to limitation.
26. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM July 15, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2024 (WZ) [EARLIER DIARY NO.2704105006962024] P.Kr Page 12 of 12