National Green Tribunal
V V Titanium Pigment Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 7 April, 2026
Item No.2:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 07th day of April, 2026.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Appeal No.69 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s V.V. Titanium Pigment Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr. S. Vaikundarajan,
A-81, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Meelavittan Village,
South Veerapandiapuram (PO),
Thoothukudi - 628 002.
...Appellant
Versus
1) The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
2) The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
#32, 33A/3, Rajarajeshwari Nagar South,
Perumalpuram, Thirunelvi - 627 007.
3) The District Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
C 7 & 9, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Meelavittan Village, Thoothukudi - 628 008.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s): M/s. Kingsly Solomon. J, N. Vijayamalathi &
J. Johnsy Greeta.
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 to R3.
Judgment Reserved on: 12th March, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1) The above appeal is directed against the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) dated 07.06.2024, vide Proceedings No. T1/TNPCB/F.0027 TTN/RL/2023, imposing an interim environmental compensation of Rs.1 crore on the appellant and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant consent orders for the remaining three years, i.e., 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28.
2) The case of the appellant is that it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited on 29.07.2011, agreeing to take over the said company within the stipulated timeframe. Accordingly, the company was taken over on 15.10.2011 and registered in the name of the appellant (M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited). The change of name of the unit was duly accepted by the TNPCB under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
3) Prior to the takeover of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited by the appellant and based on complaints regarding serious pollution issues caused by M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, a Central Committee was constituted by order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to inspect M/s. Sterlite Industries and assess environmental pollution. In its report, the Committee noted that officials of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the TNPCB along with the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), visited M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited on 07.04.2011 and made certain observations. The Committee observed that the effluent treatment facility was not operational, Ferrous Sulphate was stored in an open area and raw ore was also stored in the open, thereby posing a risk of contamination of surface and groundwater through runoff. However, no notice in this regard was issued to M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited.
Page 2 of 114) Notably, the above inspection took place prior to the appellant entering into the Memorandum of Understanding. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of inspecting M/s. Sterlite Industries, which was inspected on 06.04.2011. In fact, neither the CPCB nor the TNPCB had information regarding the constitution of the Committee and no data was available regarding individual polluters, if any. Additionally, the TNPCB had carried out surveys and inspections of eight polluted industrial areas through a third-party. Even if there were any complaints, the same were complied with by the appellant.
5) It is further contended that the University of Madras conducted a detailed reclamation study and the appellant implemented the remedial measures suggested under its supervision. The technical report received from the said University, along with the compliance report was submitted by the appellant to the TNPCB on 15.04.2021. Therefore, the report of the District Environmental Engineer (DEE) is stated to be without basis and not founded on proper inspection. In fact, the DEE's report dated 14.01.2020 records that the number of industries not complying with environmental standards was 'NIL'. Hence, the recommendation for payment of interim environmental compensation by the appellant for the violation done by the erstwhile owner lacks proper analysis.
6) It is also contended that the appellant was not the owner of the property prior to 15.10.2011, on which date M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited was taken over. As on that date, no show cause notice had been issued to M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited, nor had any inspection been conducted thereafter. The CPCB has also stated that no such documents are available with it.
7) Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2024 of the TNPCB is challenged by the appellant on the ground that the alleged inspection on 07.04.2011 was not carried out in accordance with law and not even a notice was issued to M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited. Even the routine visit that Page 3 of 11 occurred during the inspection of M/s. Sterlite Industries, as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, took place prior to the takeover of the industry by the appellant. Hence, any observations of alleged violations during that period cannot be attributed to the appellant. The impugned order is based on the alleged inspection conducted on 07.04.2011, for which no notice was issued to the appellant or the erstwhile owner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order has to be set aside.
8) In response, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed its reply affidavit dated 14.08.2025, stating that the appellant is an existing Titanium dioxide manufacturing unit located in Thoothukudi Taluk. The unit obtained Consent to Operate (CTO) on 21.05.2014 and renewal was granted up to 31.03.2025 for the manufacture of Titanium dioxide, Ferric Sulphate Liquor and the by-product Ferrous Sulphate. M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited had been in operation since 1999 and following a change in management, an amendment was issued vide Board Proceedings dated 03.11.2011 in the name of the appellant (M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited), without any change in the products or quantity manufactured.
9) The reply further states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed NEERI to carry out an independent assessment of the environmental status of the plant and the report was submitted on 20.05.2011. The report mentions that a chemical industry, namely M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited, is located near M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. During the visit made along with the CPCB and TNPCB on 07.04.2011, the inspection committee observed that the industry was storing acidic effluent in unlined underground tanks with all possibility of groundwater contamination, no effluent treatment facility was operational, Ferrous Sulphate and raw ore were stored in open area, whereby any surface runoff may contaminate the surface and groundwater.
10) The report further states that the contaminated site was inspected on 04.06.2018 by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (JCEE), TNPCB, Tirunelveli, who observed that the waste-dumped area was located to the southwest of the appellant Page 4 of 11 company. Stagnation of leachate was observed at three locations, samples were collected and the TDS values were measured using the handheld TDS Meter. The black and pale black coloured waste which was found dumped is reported to be from the erstwhile industry of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited, which was engaged in manufacturing of Titanium dioxide and the said industry is taken over by the appellant company in the year 2012 and the same is termed to be unreacted mass containing Ilmenite, which was dumped on private lands till the year 2011 by M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited. Since the pollution and contamination caused to the land and groundwater due to the dumping of waste and the leachate generated, the TNPCB recommended to clean the area. Accordingly, on 12.06.2018, the Board had issued a letter to the unit under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974, to furnish a detailed proposal for reclaiming the contaminated site within two months. Further, the lands mentioned as contaminated site initially belonged to private owners and the unreacted Ilmenite was kept dumped prior to their takeover and to comply with the Board's directions, they had approached the Director, Centre for Environmental Studies, Anna University.
11) The reply further speaks about an inspection conducted on 30.10.2018 and subsequent directions issued to the appellant. Apart from this, the Board's reply largely relates to subsequent inspections, findings and responses, which are not directly relevant to the present challenge. The Board relies on the CPCB inspection dated 07.04.2011, which recorded storage of acidic effluent in unlined tanks, non-operational effluent treatment systems and open storage of Ferrous Sulphate and raw materials.
12) The question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2024 issued by the TNPCB is sustainable.
13) The impugned proceedings refer to the CPCB inspection dated 07.04.2011, which recorded that "the industry is storing acidic effluent in unlined underground tanks with all possibility of groundwater contamination, no effluent treatment facility was operational, ferrous sulphate was stored in open area, Page 5 of 11 raw ore spread in open area whereby any surface runoff may contaminate the surface and groundwater".
14) In response, the unit submitted a reply dated 04.03.2020, stating that it had taken over M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited only pursuant to the agreement dated 29.07.2011 i.e., after the alleged inspection dated 07.04.2011. The impugned proceedings also refer to earlier proceedings dated 24.05.2022 issued under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974.
15) The impugned proceedings further note that the Chamber of Small Industry Associations filed Civil Appeal Nos.2218-2219 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of this Tribunal dated 14.11.2019. By order dated 25.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a stay until 25.04.2022, enabling individual units to make representations. Thereafter, on 18.04.2023, the Board directed the appellant to remit interim compensation of Rs.1 crore or submit details of compliance. There was further report by the DEE that the unit was issued with direction under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974, to furnish detailed proposal for reclamation of the contaminated site within two months. The Board had observed that though the unit had taken over the same from other management, the liability is transformed to the new management. Hence, the Board decided to issue certain directions to the unit under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and accordingly, directed the unit to remit a sum of Rs.1 Crore as an interim environmental compensation and to make a representation before this Tribunal with regard to the environmental compensation as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 25.02.2022 in Civil Appeal No.2218-2219 of 2020.
16) It is evident from the impugned proceedings that the entire action originates from the NEERI's visit along with CPCB & TNPCB Officials dated 07.04.2011, which noticed that "the industry is storing acidic effluent in unlined underground tanks with all possibility of groundwater contamination, no effluent treatment facility was operational, ferrous sulphate was stored in open area, raw ore spread in open area whereby any surface runoff may contaminate the surface and groundwater".
Page 6 of 1117) In this regard, the appellant had totally denied the liability on the ground that it was not the owner on the relevant date. After the taken over by the appellant, Consent to Operate issued in favour of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited was transferred in the name of the appellant by amending the same and recommended the issue of amendment for the name change of the unit from M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited to M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited vide proceedings dated 03.11.2011. If the unit had been in non-compliance with any of the conditions or had failed to pay any compensation, the TNPCB would not have transferred the consent granted in the name of the erstwhile company or at least there would be a mention about the inspection on 07.04.2011 and show cause notice issued, if any.
18) Since the impugned proceedings refer to the inspection, the appellant had applied under the RTI Act to provide the details regarding the alleged inspection conducted by the CPCB. The CPCB vide communication dated 13.09.2023 stated that no such information is available with the CPCB regarding the inspection in April 2011. The NEERI report furnished by the TNPCB dated May 2011 refers to the environmental pollution of M/s. Sterlite Industries, after joint inspection with the officials from CPCB, TNPCB and the PIL petitioners.
19) The inspections were conducted in two phases between 6th & 8th April 2011 and 19th to 23rd April 2011. In the said report, however, there is a reference, which is as follows:
"A chemical industry (M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited) is also located adjacent to the nullah. Since this established in the year 1999 manufactures titanium dioxide, ferrous-sulphate and hydrochloric acid, a visit was made along with the CPCB and TNPCB personnel on 07.04.2011 for a prima facie assessment of pollution control status of the industry. The inspection team observed that the industry is storing acidic effluent in unlined underground tanks with all possibility of groundwater contamination, no effluent treatment facility was operational, ferrous sulphate was stored in open area, raw ore spread in open area whereby any surface runoff may contaminate the surface and groundwater. As per the Consent, the industry utilizes the effluent for irrigation on its own land."Page 7 of 11
20) From the above, it is evident that what is referred to in the impugned order is the inspection of the CPCB on 07.04.2011 of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited and not the appellant (M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited). The status report on the issues raised in the video by 'Let us make engineering simple' has remarked regarding the stormwater drain regarding M/s. Sterlite Industries as follows:
"The water in the storm water drain was found in pale reddish colour. It is predominantly found to be so due to the background deposited material, likely Iron Oxide. The samples collected from the storm water drain on 02.02.2018 was found to have containing about 121 mg/L to 123 mg/L of Iron content and hence a show cause notice was issued to M/s. V V Titanium Pigments Private Limited, which is engaged in the production of Titanium Oxide using Illuminate and Sulphuric acid as the main raw materials. During inspection on 04th June 2018 ad 5th June 2018, it was observed that the industry has completely plugged the storm drain from the industry and there is no possibility of storm water or other water streams from the industry, mixing with the water in the storm water drain near Sterlite Industries. During inspection on 04th June 2018 and 5th June 2018, there was no flow in the storm water drain near the Sterlite Industries, only stagnation of water was observed in front of the industry of M/s. V V Titanium Industries Pigments Limited at two locations: one before the Western gate of the industry and one in front of the Admin gate of the industry. The samples at these locations were collected and sent to the District Environmental Laboratory, Thoothukudi for analysis. It is submitted that cleaning/desilting the drain would ensure the free flow of water in the drain, and would be colourless."
21) Further, the same status report remarked that the black and pale black coloured waste was found as reported to be from the erstwhile industry of M/s. Kilburn Chemicals Limited.
22) The TNPCB has contended that the first action was taken by them only in the year 2018 by issuing directions under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974, on 12.06.2018, directing the appellant to furnish a detailed proposal for reclaiming the contaminated site within two months in consultation with the reputed institutions such as Anna University, IIT, etc. Subsequently, a fresh direction was issued under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974, which also refers to the earlier inspection conducted by the CPCB on 07.04.2011, which noticed storing of the acidic effluents and subsequent notice were issued only based on the same.
Page 8 of 1123) The second of the action taken by the TNPCB was on 14.01.2020, directing the unit to conduct a detailed study report as directed on the previous occasion and to remit a sum of Rs.1 Crore as an interim environmental compensation. Thereafter, on 28.01.2020, once again the TNPCB directed the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.1 Crore for storing the acidic effluent, pursuant to the inspection caused by the CPCB on 07.04.2011. On 07.06.2024, certain directions were issued to the appellant by the Board, which also refers to the earlier inspection on 07.04.2011, again calling upon the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.1 Crore as an interim environmental compensation.
24) The TNPCB, in its reply, has stated that the stagnation of leaching was observed in three locations and samples were collected at these locations. In this regard, Section 21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, empowers the Board to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith.
25) Section 21 of the Water Act, 1974, is usefully reproduced below:
"21. Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith:
(1) A State Board or any officer empowered by it in this behalf shall have power to take for the purpose of analysis samples of water from any stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade effluent which is passing from any plant or vessel or from or over any place into any such stream or well.
(2) The result of any analysis of a sample of any sewage or trade effluent taken under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible in evidence in any legal proceeding unless the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) are complied with.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5), when a sample (composite or otherwise as may be warranted by the process used) of any sewage or trade effluent is taken for analysis under sub-section (1), the person taking the sample shall--
(a) serve on the person in charge of, or having control over, the plant or vessel or in occupation of the place (which person is hereinafter referred to as the occupier) or any agent of such occupier, a notice, then and there in such form as may be prescribed of his intention to have it so analysed;
(b) in the presence of the occupier or his agent, divide the sample into two parts;
(c) cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be marked and sealed and shall also be signed both by the person taking the sample and the occupier or his agent"Page 9 of 11
26) As per the above provisions, a notice must be served on the occupier or their agent before collecting samples. The samples must then be divided into two parts, with each part placed in a separate container and signed by both the person collecting the samples and the occupier. However, as alleged by the appellant, no such procedure was followed in the present case.
27) The subsequent owner is generally not liable for environmental damages or compensation imposed for acts committed by the previous owner, provided that the new entity was not involved in those violations. Successors are typically protected from past breaches of which they had no knowledge.
28) The "Polluter Pays" principle targets only the actual polluter for remediation and compensation costs and does not automatically transfer liability to a successor unless the Memorandum of Understanding specifies otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that liability follows the offender, and while the Pollution Control Board is empowered to recover dues from violators, it cannot impose such liability on a successor solely based on a transfer of ownership.
29) Undoubtedly, when a company is taken over, due diligence, such as an environmental audit, is conducted to avoid the assumption of such liabilities. In the present case, on the date of inspection, the appellant was not the owner. Moreover, on the date of the Memorandum of Understanding or the takeover, there was not even a show cause notice pending against the previous owner. In the absence of any contractual provision to the contrary, liability for past violations cannot be recovered from the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, the "Polluter Pays" principle primarily attaches liability to the actual violator and does not automatically extend to the new owner in the absence of any disclosed liability. Hence, the TNPCB cannot proceed against the transferee while sparing the actual offender.
30) From the detailed discussion above, it is evident that the entire procedure was based solely on the inspection conducted by the NEERI along with CPCB & TNPCB Officials on 07.04.2011, which occurred well before the appellant took over the company.
Page 10 of 11At the time of takeover by the appellant, no show cause notice had been issued to the erstwhile owner, nor had any liability been crystallized against them. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for compensation arising from past violations based on the inspection dated 07.04.2011. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the TNPCB is liable to be set aside. So far as the contaminated site is concerned, the TNPCB shall ensure its remediation in accordance with the law and the "Polluter Pays" principle.
31) In the result, the appeal [Appeal No.69 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board dated 07.06.2024 is set aside.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.69/2024 (SZ), 07th April, 2026. Mn.
Page 11 of 11