National Green Tribunal
M S Raja vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary on 31 March, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.6:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 08 of 2022 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M.S. Raja,
4/1, Saraswathi Amman Kovil Street,
Puthukudi - 628 621.
Srivaikundam,
Thoothukudi District.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary of Government,
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change,
Government of India, Paryavaran Bhavan,
New Delhi and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 31.03.2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. M.A. Rua represented
Mr. V. Ramasubbu and Mr. A. Thirumalai Raja.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4 & R5.
Mr. Kingsly Solomon for R6.
Page 1 of 8
ORDER
1. The above case has been posted to today for return of notice, appearance of parties, completion of pleadings and consideration of report.
2. When the matter came up for hearing today, Mr. M.A. Rua represented Mr. V. Ramasubbu and Mr. A. Thirumalai Raja, the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff represented 1st Respondent, Dr. D. Shanmuganathan represented 3rd Respondent, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith represented Respondents No.4 & 5 and Mr. Kingsly Solomon represented 6th Respondent. So, service complete.
3. The 6th Respondent has filed their counter.
4. The Joint Committee has filed the report dated Nil, e-filed on 30.03.2022 which reads as follows:-
"Report of the Joint Committee constituted vide Hon'ble NGT(SZ) order dated 18.01.2022 in O.A. No. 08 of 2012 Date of inspection of the Joint committee: 22/03/2022 & 23/03/2022 Introduction:
Thiru. M.S. Raja of Puthukudi, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District has filed this O.A. No. 08 of 2022 against the 1. Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests Page 2 of 8 and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi, 2. The Member Secretary, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Chennai, 3. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Department of Environment, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai, 4. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, 5. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thoothukudi, 6. M/s. V. V. Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Thoothukudi regarding the establishment of a 6 MW Thermal Power Plant by the 6th respondent industry namely M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Private Ltd. In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner it has been mentioned that the 6th respondent industry has established a 6 MW Thermal Power Plant illegally without obtaining environmental clearance as required under the EIA Notification 2006 and also without obtaining State Pollution Control Board consents and hence the Petitioner has prayed the Hon'ble NGT 1. To direct the 6th respondent industry to immediately stop the illegal and unlawful operation of the 6 MW Thermal Power Plant and 2. To direct the 6th respondent to take steps towards compensating and remedying the social and environmental damages caused due to illegal establishment and illegal operation.
The Hon'ble NGT (SZ), Chennai in its order dated. 18.01.2022 had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior officer from Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Integrated Regional office, Chennai (ii) a Senior officer from the State Level Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu and (iii) District Environmental Engineer of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thoothukudi to inspect the area in question and to submit report.
In its order dated. 18.01.2022 the Hon'ble NGT issued the following directions:
Para 11: The Joint Committee to inspect the area in question and to submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found.
Para 12: The Joint Committee is also directed to ascertain as to Page 3 of 8 whether the 6th Respondent had obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) and necessary permissions under the environmental laws for establishing the 6 MW Power Plant and whether they are operating still, despite the closure order issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, as alleged by the applicant in the application and if so, what is the nature of action taken against them. If the 6th Respondent had committed any violation of environmental laws, the committee is directed to assess the damage caused to the environment on account of their alleged illegal operation and assess environmental compensation not only for the violation of the conditions of the alleged unauthorized operation, but also for cost of restoration for the damage caused to the environment.
Para 13: The Joint Committee is also directed to ascertain as to whether all necessary pollution control mechanisms have been provided to mitigate the chances of pollution on account of the operation of the alleged 6 MW Power Plant, even if they obtained necessary permissions and if not, what is the nature of precautionary measures to be taken to resolve the issue to avoid further complaints in this regard.
In compliance to the above Hon'ble NGT (SZ) order, a Joint Committee was formed with the following members to inspect the 6th respondent industry and to submit the factual and action taken report:
1. Dr. Sridhar, Scientist 'D', MoEF&CC, IRO, Chennai.
2. Shri. KSSVP Reddy, IFS, Expert Member - SEAC, TN SEIAA, Chennai.
3. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Thoothukudi.
The Joint Committee inspected the 6th respondent industry on 22nd and 23rd March 2022 and following report is submitted:
Observation made by the Joint Committee during inspection:
Directions in Para 11 Factual and action taken report: M/s. V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt Ltd has proposed to establish 6 MW coal fired thermal captive power plant in its premises in S.F.No. 1225, 1227/1 and 1227/2 of Meelavittan Part I Village, Thoothukudi District and submitted project proposals to SEIAA for EC under B1 category schedule 1 Page 4 of 8
(d) of EIA Notification 2006 on 13/02/2016. The SEJAA based on appraisal of SEAC has issued Standard Terms of Reference (TOR) on 17/5/2016 for preparing Environment Impact Assessment report with public consultation.
The project proponent has not continued with the further process of EC, but continued fabrication and construction works. On complaints of company proceeding constructions without EC, the TNPCB issued Show Cause Notice and issued directions to stop further works. Meanwhile, the project proponent has withdrawn EC application in SEIAA on 16/10/2017.
The industry filed fresh application to Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board(TNPCB) on 01/11/2017 and obtained Consent to Establish(CTE) for 4.5 MW coal based thermal power plant for the same project at the same place. The Consent to Operate has been issued to the company on 27/06/2019 by TNPCB. The company has avoided taking EC under EIA Notification 2006 for MW Thermal plant and downsized its plant to 4.5 MW capacity by altering the machinery components. The reason for downsizing plant to 4.5 MW is apparently to avoid the public consultation and EIA Notification process. The thermal plant of 4.5 MW has, thus come into existence and is in operation in the premises. The company has chosen to downsize capacity 6 MW to 4.5 MW to obtain CTE and CTO from TNPCB under section 21 of Air Act, 1981 as amended and under section 25 of Water Act, 1974 as amended so as to avoid process under EIA Notification 2006. In either of the cases the company has clearly commenced the fabrication and construction works before obtaining the prior environmental clearance or before CTE obtained. Hence, it is a case of violation.
Directions in Para 12:
Environment Clearance for 6 MW thermal plant has never been obtained by the company and in its place a 4.5 MW plant has been established and is in operation. Hence, operation of 6 MW plant by the company does not arise. The directions issued by the TNPCB to stop works have been followed with regard to establishment of 6 MW plant. In as much as 6 MW plant has not been established, the question of assessing damage caused to Environment on account of its illegal unauthorized operation, assessing environmental compensation for alleged operation and cost of restoration for the damage, does not arise.Page 5 of 8
Directions in Para 13:
As 6 MW thermal plant has not been in existence, the pollution control mechanism could not be studied. However, the conditions stipulated by the TNPCB in its CTE and CTO with regard to 4.5 MW thermal plant like Electro Static Precipitator, ETP and RO plant, water sprinkling, use of imported coal, not using plastics, development of green belt etc., have been complied with."
5. Other respondents have not filed their statement and they wanted some more time.
6. The grievance in this application was regarding the operation of the 5th Respondent unit without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC). But the Joint Committee's report shows that the Environmental Clearance (EC) is required only for the Coal-based Thermal Power Plants having production capacity of 5 MW and above.
7. Though earlier the 6th Respondent had a proposal to have 6 MW Coal- based Thermal Power Plant and started the construction without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance (EC), stop memo was issued and the construction work was stopped in 2017. Later, they withdrew the application for Environmental Clearance (EC) on 16.10.2017 and revised their production capacity to 4.5 MW, for which, no Environmental Clearance (EC) is required under the EIA Notification and thereafter, they applied for Consent to Establish and the same Page 6 of 8 was granted and only after completion of the unit, Consent to Operate was also granted and they started functioning of the unit for production capacity of 4.5 MW.
8. Though there was a suspicion made in the Joint Committee report that whether it was intentionally made to avoid Environmental Clearance (EC), but with an intention to make production beyond that capacity, we feel it appropriate to direct the State Pollution Control Board to ascertain as to whether they have installed machinery with higher capacity for producing more than the permitted capacity and whether they are making such production.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant wants to get further instruction from the party on the basis of the Joint Committee report as to whether the observations made in the Joint Committee report are correct or not.
10. The State Pollution Control Board and the other official respondents are directed to file the report and independent statement respectively on or before 04.04.2022 by e-filing in the form of Searchable PDF/OCR Supportable PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hardcopies to be produced as per Rules and parties are directed to get ready with the matter on that date. Page 7 of 8
11. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents by e-mail immediately for their information and compliance of directions.
12. For completion of pleadings, consideration of report and hearing, post on 04.04.2022.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.08/2022 (SZ) 31st March 2022. Mn.
Page 8 of 8