Madras High Court
Dindigul Spinners Association (Regn. ... vs Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 26 April, 2005
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam, C. Nagappan
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. These two Writ Petitions have been filed by Dindigul Spinners Association, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the records relating to G.O. Ms. Nos. 165 and 166, dated 30.07.1996, issued by the first respondent, namely, Environment and Forests (E.C.I.) Department, and consequently direct the respondents to refix the entire Red, Orange and Green categories of industries with transparent policies.
2. We have heard Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and also gone through the records.
3. According to Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, despite the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 08.08.2002 to the effect that the consent fee structure needs a second look by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board taking into account the effective steps taken by the applicant industries to control pollution and the nature and quantum of pollutants discharged and in spite of the representations made before the second respondent, requesting to consider the said observation of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority, the second respondent has not acted upon on the said observation and, on the other hand, the Board insists on every industry, situated in Tamil Nadu, irrespective of the fact whether it pollutes or not, to get a consent order from the Board and has to renew the same at periodical intervals once in a year or two years without, making any scrutiny for reconsideration of the fee structure, as per the observation made the Appellate Authority.
4. The said submission is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the strength of the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, namely, second respondent herein, that the petitioner mills are the spinning mills, which are engaged in the production of cotton yarn, which involves the process of blowing, drawing, cone winding and spinning, generating sewage and trade effluents. As per the provisions of the Water and Air Acts, it is clearly revealed that any industrial unit, discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land, should obtain prior consent. That consent shall be given, subject to some conditions. By an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.02.1996, all the spinning mills are directed to approach the Appellate Authority to decide whether the petitioners come under the purview of Water and Air Acts and also to strike down the pattern of the fee collected by the Board. On that basis, G.O. Ms. Nos. 165 and 166 were issued on 30.07.1996 and came into force with immediate effect; by which, the industries were classified as Red, Orange and Green. Prior to the introduction of these G. Os., consent fees was levied on the Gross Fixed Assets only. As per the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the first respondent was directed to revise the consent fee structure on the quantum and grade of pollution caused by various industries. Accordingly, rules were amended and G.O. Ms. Nos. 165 and 166, dated 30.07.1996, were issued. Even thereafter, the spinning mills preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the said appeal was rejected. Subsequent to that, the petitioner mills filed a Writ Petition, questioning the consent fee and the same was also dismissed on 30.04.2001, by a Division Bench of this Court, and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the issue whether the petitioner spinning mills come within the purview of Water and Air Acts. On remand, the Appellate Authority, heard the parties at length; various contentions were raised and the same were dealt with in detail and rejected, by an order dated 26.12.2003. Having taken into consideration the pollution potential aspects and the Gross Fixed Assets, the impugned G. Os. came to be passed.
5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the G. Os., issued in the year 1996, are sought to be quashed only in the year 2004 i.e., after a lapse of eight years, and, as such, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed, on the ground of latches.
6. On a perusal of the entire records, it is clear, that the main questions relating to the applicability of the Water and Air Acts to the spinning mills were considered by the Appellate Authority, which, in turn, rejected the contentions of the petitioner and accepted the arguments of the Board, with reference to the applicability of the Acts. Only on the bais of the order passed by this Court on 26.02.1996, G.O. Ms. Nos. 165 and 166 were passed on 30.07.1996, classifying the industries as Red, Orange and Green. Red indicates highly polluting; Orange indicates medium polluting and Green indicates less polluting.
7. There is no dispute in the fact that prior to introduction of these G. Os., consent fee was levied based on the Gross Fixed Assets only. After the same was struck down by the Division, the first respondent considered various factors and revised the consent fee structure, on the basis of quantum and grade of pollution, caused by various industries.
8. The industries are categorised as Red, Orange and Green, based on pollution potential only. For each category, consent fee is differentiated, based on Gross Fixed Assets, for small and large industries and, as such, there is no material to conclude that there is an arbitration for fixing the quantum.
9. As per the counter filed by the respondents, an industry with Gross Fixed Assets of Rs. 1.00 Crore falls under Red category and will be charged Rs. 7,500/- per year whereas if it falls under Orange or Green category, it will be charged Rs. 6,000/- and 5,000/- respectively. The amounts fixed for Orange and Green category are renewable once in two years, if the industries comply with the stipulations. From this, it is clear that the amounts come to Rs. 3,000/- and 2,500/- for Orange and Green categories per year respectively. This shows that there is a substantial difference between the categories. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, seeking for quashing of the impugned G.O. Ms. Nos. 165 and 166, dated 30.07.1996, is without any valid reasons, that too after a lapse of eight years, and is not sustainable.
10. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Also, the connected W.P.M.P. Nos. 5875 to 5878 of 2005 are dismissed.