National Green Tribunal
Kg Screen Prints vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board on 14 July, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 03 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 20/2021(WZ)
M/s K. G. Screen Prints Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Pollution Control Board Respondent
Date of hearing: 14.07.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of Gujarat State PCB dated 17.05.2021 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The same is reproduced below:-
"1. Whereas you are operating K.G. Screen Prints, at Plot No. 236, Chhipa Kuva, besides Madni Masjid, Danilimda, Ahmedabad - 380022
2. Whereas during visit of your industry on 08/1/2021 under Section 23 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 by officers of Board Officials, following was observed:
1. You have obtained CTE for printing of cloth whereas dyeing bleaching, printing and washing activity was going on.
2. You have started dyeing activity without obtaining CTE/CCA of the Board.
3. Only primary ETP was found in operation and effluent after primary treatment was being discharged in to AMC drain.
4. Flow meter on final outlet is not installed.
5. TSDF membership certificate is not obtained.
6. Industrial effluent was found over flowing from manhole.
7. Analysis report of sample collected shows BOD:67 mg/lit, COD:367 mg/lit & pH 4.83 which is exceeding norms prescribed by Board.1
Under above circumstances, I A.J. Patel, Incharge Unit Head, Gujarat Pollution Control Board, issue an order under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as follows:
I. To stop production activity of your industry after 30.06.2021.
II. To stop production if it is operating on captive power or D.G. sets.
III. To provide effluent treatment plant for treatment of waste water and provide APCM for control of air pollutants. As per new bank guarantee scheme, you shall submit bank guarantee of Rs. 1.0 lakh to the Board.
IV. To pay the required amount of EDC.
If you fail to comply with above directions, legal action will be initiated against you and responsible officers under Section 41(2) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974."
2. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the impugned order is without any basis. The appellant was compliant and made a representation dated 21.05.2022 with the lab report collected on 12.04.2021 which have not been considered. The appellant was not heard before passing of the order.
3. There is no merit in the contention. The stand of the appellant, vide letter dated 17.03.2021, acknowledged most of the violations. The letter is reproduced below:-
"1. We assure that we will apply for CTE for dyeing activity after completion of up gradation of secondary ETP.
2. We have stopped production and will restart after obtaining CCA.
3. As water was over flowing from Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation drainage line, it was back flowing to our line resulting in to overflow from manhole. Sample is collected from this overflow hence results are not meeting with norms. However, we have undertaken work of up gradation of ETP. It will be completed within 20-25 days, thereafter, results of water will meet with norms.
4. We will also install flow meter on final outlet of ETP after completion of up gradation work of ETP and photograph will be uploaded on XGN."
4. From the above, it is seen that the appellant acknowledged that it did not have the CTE for the dyeing activity not the flow meter on the final outlet of ETP. As regards letter dated 21.05.2021 the version therein to the extent that it is at variance with the earlier letter dated 17.03.2021 2 appears to be an afterthought. The plea that the unit was running only on trial basis was not earlier raised. Even letter dated 21.05.2021 acknowledges that ETP upgradation was under process. The relevant part of the letter is reproduced below:-
"1) We inform you that we have got NOC from the Board and our NOC No. CTE-92426, issued dated 23.04.2018 and is valid up to 28.02.2025.
We have applied for CCA Fresh application vides inward ID No. 196265, dated on 20.05.2021. The CCA Fresh online inward copy attached for your kind perusal.
2) We have got NOC for cloth processing (printing and washing) process for Grey Cloths. We inform you that during Board officer visit we were doing trial run only for dyeing process after the visit we have immediately closed our dyeing process. We assure to the Board we will not do dyeing process in our unit without obtaining NOC/CCA Amendment.
We inform you that, we have done only trial run for dyeing process in our unit during Board officer visit. At present, we have stopped our dyeing process. We will do dyeing process after getting prior permission from the Board.
3) Our ETP up gradation process is running in our unit for installation of primary to secondary and tertiary ETP treatment facility. We will complete our ETP installation within week. We have attached herewith ETP details and flow diagram of ETP units for your kind perusal. We will discharge w/w only after providing proper waste water treatment facility and then only we will discharge to AMC Drainage system.
4) We have installed flow meter on ETP final outlet in our unit."
5. Next letter dated 29.06.2021 also does not change the situation as violations stand acknowledged by the appellant vide letter dated 17.03.2021.
6. The appellant has relied upon orders of this Tribunal dated 28.06.2021 in Appeal No. 17/2021 (WZ), Pokarna Phosphates & Nitrates 3 v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board and 15.10.2020 in Appeal No. 41/2020, Mohd. Tahir v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee holding that hearing was required to be given in the said cases by the PCB as it was found that the appellant therein had denied the allegations which required their version being considered. In the present case, the appellant acknowledged the violations. Thus, the situation is different.
7. The appellant has also relied upon a circular of the State PCB granting extensions for the consents which were expiring. The said circular has no relevance as the appellant did not have the requisite consent and there are other violations also which could not be condoned.
8. As regards subsequent compliance claimed, we do not make any comment as that aspect has to be first raised before the PCB.
9. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM M. Sathyanarayanan, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM July 14, 2021 Appeal No. 20/2021(WZ) A 4