National Green Tribunal
Ms Shams Leather Finishers Through Its ... vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 4 July, 2025
Item No. 1B Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 13/2025
M/s Shams Leather Finishers
Through its Proprietor Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 26.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 04.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Ms. Mansi Chahal, Mr. S.A. Zaidi & Mr. Kapil Sagar, Advocates
Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB
ORDER
1. By this appeal filed under Sections 16 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, "NGT Act"), the Appellant M/s. Shams Leather Finishers, has challenged the two orders firstly, the order dated 26.12.2024, reference no. H21772/C-2/Water/196/Closure/24, directing the closure of the Appellant's unit and secondly, the order dated 26.12.2024, reference no. H21771/C-2/Water/196/EC/24 imposing the environmental compensation of ₹7,12,500/-.
2. The Appellant is engaged in the business of making finished leather from raw-hide by chrome tanning. The industrial unit was inspected by the officials of the third party team duly authorized by the Central Pollution Control Board (for short, "CPCB") on 24.06.2024 in which the unit was found to be operating in violation of the environmental norms and conditions of consent to operate, the Primary Effluent Treatment 1 Plant (for short, "PETP") was found to be non-functional and untreated effluent was found to be directly discharged in drain, outside the premise of the industry. The Appellant was given the show cause notice dated 02.09.2024 requiring it to show cause for passing the closure order and also for imposition of environmental compensation. After the show cause notice, the unit of the Appellant was inspected by the officials of the Regional Office, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, "UPPCB") on 18.10.2024. The PETP was found to be functional, and the samples from the outlet of the PETP were collected and sent for analysis. In the analysis report, it was found that the discharged untreated effluents were beyond the standard/norms. The Appellant had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. The Regional Office, UPPCB, vide communication dated 05.12.2024, had recommended to the Head Office, UPPCB, Lucknow, for closure of the Appellant's unit and also for imposition of environmental compensation.
3. The UPPCB had issued the impugned orders dated 26.12.2024, imposing environmental compensation of ₹7,12,500/- and ordering the closure of the unit. The reply filed by the UPPCB shows that, in compliance with the closure order, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, stopped the operation and sealed the premises of the unit on 25.03.2025.
4. The Appellant has challenged the closure order on the ground that it is a small-scale unit manufacturing dog chew products. The stand of the Appellant is that the closure order has been wrongly passed, and the environmental compensation could not have been imposed.
5. The stand of the UPPCB is that the unit was not complying with the norms and was directly discharging the untreated effluent and PETP 2 was non-functional; therefore, after following the due process and giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. So far as the stand of the Appellant that it is involved in the manufacturing of dog chew products is concerned, the Consent to Operate (for short, "CTO") dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure-1) issued to the Appellant is on record which clearly mentions as under:-
"1. This consent is valid for the approved production capacity of Processing of Raw hides-375 Kg/day (which is restricted capacity at 50% of the consented capacity, till the further order) to Finished leather."
8. The above condition reveals that the Appellant was granted consent for the approved production capacity of processing raw hides for making the finished leather. No contrary material has been placed on record by the Appellant in support of the plea that it is manufacturing dog chew products. Hence, such a plea is found to be unsubstantiated and contrary to the record.
9. In the consent to operate, it was mentioned that:
"xxx........................................xxx......................................xxx 4(b) The industrial effluent should be treated in treatment plant so that the treated effluent should be in conformity with the following norms-
Industrial Effluent
S. No. Parameter Standard
1. Total Suspended Solids As per Standard
prescribed by UPPCB for
PETP outlet on
02.11.2019
2. Quantity of Discharge Total Chromium-As per
Standard prescribed by
UPPCB for PETP outlet on
02.11.2019
3. Quantity of Discharge pH-6.5 to 9.0
3
5. Effluent generated in all the processes, bleed water, cooling effluent and the effluent generated from washing of floor and equipments etc. should be treated before its disposal with treated industrial effluent so that it should be according to the norms prescribed under The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or otherwise mandatory.
6. The method for collecting industrial and domestic effluent and its analysis should be as per legal Indian standards and its subsequent amendments/ standards prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
7. The member unit of CETP shall upgrade, maintain & operate the PETP effectively, to achieve the prescribed standards for inlet of CЕТР.
8. The individual units having own ETP shall operate and maintain the ETP to achieve the standards prescribed under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986."
10. The CTO also mentions following specific condition: -
"xxx........................................xxx......................................xxx
2. In compliance of MoEF&CC notification no S.O. 4E dated 01.01.2016, Board has prescribed the standards for PETP outlet vide officer order No. G-31438/C-2/Sa-78 Vol-II/2019 dated 02.11.2019 available on Board's website www.uppcb.com. Industry shall treat the industrial effluent through PETP to comply with the prescribed standards."
11. The unit of the Appellant was inspected during the 7th round of annual inspection of Grossly Polluting Industries (for short, "GPIs"), 2023-2024 by a team of CSIR-CLRI and based on the report, CPCB had sent the communication dated 27.06.2024 to the Member Secretary, UPPCB disclosing the following violations found during the inspection of the Appellant tannery: -
"1. M/s. Shams Leather Finishers, 150ft. Road, Jajmau, Kanpur, UP (Unit code:527) was found operation at the time of inspection.
• PETP was found non-operational and in completely abandoned condition during inspection • Collection tank was found filled with thick sludge. Settling tank & sludge drying beds were found completely dry and abandoned.
• Untreated process effluent was found directly discharged outside of the premises to industrial drain (CETP Jajmau conveyance channel).4
• Photographic/Video graphic evidence of the same have also been provided along with the email.
• Copy of email is enclosed for your reference at Annexure-I.
12. The Appellant was issued show cause notice dated 02.09.2024 disclosing the communication dated 27.06.2024 and inspection dated 24.06.2024, and also mentioning about improper upkeep of PETP and violation of the consent condition. Accordingly, Appellant was required to show cause as to why its unit should not be closed and the environmental compensation at the rate of ₹12,500/- as per the guidelines for the violating period should not be levied.
13. The UPPCB has placed on record a copy of the show cause notice, which contains the endorsement of its receipt.
14. Appellant has filed rejoinder to the reply of UPPCB but has not offered any explanation in respect of the endorsement of receipt on the show cause notice.
15. The record further reflects that fresh samples were collected on 18.10.2024. Therefore, the violation period of 57 days has been calculated from first inspection, i.e., from 24.06.2024 to the next inspection, i.e., on 18.10.2024, by reducing the roaster period of closure of the unit.
16. The Appellant has also raised the plea that provisions of Section 21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (for short, "Water Act") were not complied with while taking the sample in as much as the second sample which was collected was not handed over to the Appellant. Under Section 21 of the Water Act, a second sample can be taken and sent to the specified laboratory on the request of the occupier or its agent. Counsel for the Appellant could not point out any provision 5 from Section 21 of the Water Act that the second sample was required to be handed over to the occupier or agent of the unit. Hence, such a submission is found to be devoid of any substance.
17. The above analysis reveals that the Appellant is a tannery, which is a grossly polluting industry. Appellant was found discharging the untreated effluent, and the PETP was non-functional. The sample analysis report placed on record reveals that the samples were not found to be meeting the prescribed norms. Therefore, no error has been committed by the Respondent-Authorities in passing the impugned order after duly complying with the principles of natural justice and issuing a show cause notice to the Appellant. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error, and no case for interference is made out.
18. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM July 04, 2025 Appeal 13/2025 Avt..
6