National Green Tribunal
Ramesh Kumar vs Haryana Organic (A Unit Of Globus ... on 25 September, 2024
Item No. 07 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 111/2024
(I.A. No. 468/2024)
Ramesh Kumar Applicant
Versus
Haryana Organic (A unit of Globus Spirits Limited). Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 25.09.2024
Date of Uploading: 25.10.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : None for the Applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Adv. with Mr. Abhay Chattopadhyay and
Mr. Udipto Koushik Sarmah, Adv. for Haryana Organics.
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for HSPCB.
Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Mr. Neelmani Guha and
Ms. Shaima Masood, Advs. for CPCB (Through VC).
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member
1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, a resident of village Chulkana, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana, has filed the present application seeking award of appropriate compensation and issuance of order for closure of Respondent no. 1 unit.
2. The applicant has raised the grievances that the Applicant is an Agriculturist and is having 20 acres of land. Respondent No. 1-Haryana Organics (A unit of Globus Spirits Limited) 4 km Chulkana Road, Samalkha-132101, District Panipat Haryana, which is a liquor factory, is discharging polluted water on his land for the last 10-12 years. Chemical effluents discharged, gases emitted and air pollution caused by Respondent No. 1 is destroying and adversely affecting his crops. The 1 Applicant has enclosed photographs in support of his grievances raised in the application. The Applicant has further submitted that the Applicant made complaint to the PCB but no action has been taken.
3. Vide order dated 01.02.2024 this Tribunal impleaded Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) through the Member Secretary; District Magistrate, Panipat and Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as Respondents and ordered issuance of notices to them. By the above said order this Tribunal also constituted a Joint Committee comprising of representative of the Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, HSPCB and District Magistrate, Panipat with direction to visit the spot, ascertain factual position and submit the action taken report before this Tribunal.
4. The Regional Officer, HSPCB, Panipat made written request for extension of time for filing of the report by the Joint Committee which was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2024 and further three weeks time was granted to the Joint Committee to file the report.
5. In compliance thereof the Joint Committee inspected M/s Haryana Organics on 14.03.2024 and submitted its report before this Tribunal on 28.05.2024 mentioning its observations and recommendations. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-
"Joint inspection report of "M/s Haryana Organics (A Unit of Globus Spirits Limited) 4 Km Chulkana Road, Samalkha, District-Panipat, Haryana" in compliance to Hon'ble NGT order dated 01.02.2024 in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs Haryana Organic (A Unit of Globus Spirits Limited) [O.A No. 12/2023] X X X X In compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 01.02.2024, the joint inspection of M/s Haryana Organics (A Unit of Globus Spirits Limited) 4 Km Chulkana Road, Samalkha, District-Panipat, Haryana was carried out by a joint team comprising of 2 representative of the Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, HSPCB and District Magistrate, Panipat on 14.03.2024 and also visited surrounding area outside the industry premises.
During the joint team visit, the Distillery Unit. I.e. M/s Haryana Organics (Grain based distillery plant) was found operational. The Unit has consolidated Consent to Operate (CTO) having validity up to 30.09.2027 for Grain based distillery and for Bottling plant. The salient feature, observations and recommendations of the joint Committee based on the inspection of the said Unit on 14.03.2024 are given below:
2.0 INSPECTION OF M/s HARYANA ORGANICS (A UNIT OF GLOBUS SPIRITS LIMITED) 4 KM CHULKANA ROAD, SAMALKHA, DISTRICT-PANIPAT, HARYANA.
The joint team carried out inspection of the Units on 14.03.2024 w.r.t Effluent management, solid waste management and groundwater quality and other regulatory permission such as Consents to Operate/Consolidated Consent & Authorization (CCA) under Water & Air Act and No Objection Certificates (NOC) for ground water withdrawal.
The joint team collected relevant documents such as copy of CTO/CCA under Air Act, Water Act and Authorization under Hazardous and other Waste Rules issued by HSPCB, NOC issued by Haryana Water Resources (Conservation, Regulation & Management) Authority, Copies of logbooks for whole stillage/ spent-wash generation, alcohol production, freshwater consumption etc. A General Information 1 Name of the Unit and Address M/s Haryana Organics (A Unit of Globus Spirits Limited) 4 Km Chulkana Road, Samalkha, District-Panipat, Haryana-132101.
2 Name of the Proprietor/ Contact Sh. M. P. Singh, VP Works person - Designation Contact No. E-Mail - [email protected] 3 Year of Commissioning. 1994 4 Sector Distillery (Grain based) 5 Production capacity 140 KLD 6 Products Rectified Spirit (RS)/ Extra Neutral Alcohol Consented Production Capacity (ENA) 140 KLD/ Ethanol Actual production 104 KLD (As per data provided by Unit for Jan to 12.03.2024)
7. Raw materials used Grains B : Water Pollution and its Control 3
8. Water Supply Source Bore wells (04 no.) (one bore well not in operation at time of inspection).
Water Consumption (KLD) 478.15 KLD (Avg. of Jan-
March(upto13.03.2024) (Flo w meter in sta lled at bo rewell) Yes Logb ook ma in ta in: CGWA/HRWA Permission obtain ed.
Expired on 18.06.2022. Renewal application filed by the Unit on 19.06.2022.
9. Waste Water Generation (KLD) Spent wash (to MEE) - 754 KLD (as per Unit) a. Industrial Spent Leese - 180 KLD (to process/liquefaction) Process Condensate - 538 KLD Cooling tower blow down - 20 KLD b. Domestic Boiler 15 KLDblow down - 13 KLD
10. Details of ETP installed For spent-wash management Unit has installed Decanter (centrifuge system), Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) and Dryer for DDGS production.
For other process effluent, Unit has installed CPU (condensate polishing Unit) comprises of Equalization tank → pH correction tank →Primary tube settler → Buffer tank→ Anaerobic digestor →Aeration tank → Secondary 11 Mode of disposal of treated effluent Concentrated spent-wash after MEE is dried in Dryer for DDGS (Dried Distillers Grain Solids) production whereas other effluent including MEE condensate is treated in CPU and treated reused/recycled in Cooling Tower make up as well as in process as reported by the Unit.
Status of Consent under the Valid up to 30.09.2027 (Annexure-1) 12 Water Act- 1974 13 Details of MEE (Multiple Effect Evaporator) Type: Falling & Forced circulation plant No. of effects: 06 nos.
MEE Feed rate: 617 m3/hr Condensate generation: 538 m3/ h r Concentrate (thick slope) generation: 79 m3/hr 14 Dryer Details (for DDGS Operation hours -- 24 hr in a day production) Max. Days of continuous operation:350 days Shutdown period:15days Thick slope feed rate. App 3.29 m3/hr Wet cake feed rate - 5.71 m3/hr DDGS generation - 2.75 MT/hr (66TPD) 15 Details of online Flow Online flow-meter with connectivity to measuring device installed for spent CPCB installed at New Plant & Old Plant. wash C: Air Pollution and its Control A irSources of Air Pollution 16 1 Boiler- 25 TPH 2 Boiler -- 10 TPH 4 17 Deta Boiler 1 Boiler 2 Fuel Rice Husk Rice husk etc. used Type of Fuel used with consumption Fuel 115 MT/day 80 MT/day Stack details with APCS cons ump tion Stac 44.2 mt. 42.67 rnt.
k heig ht & dia.
APC
D
ESP Bag filter
attac
hed
18 Status of Consent under the Air Act- Valid up to 30.09.2027 (Annexure-1)
1981
19 Details of online emission monitoring PM (particulate matter) online emission system available & connectivity monitoring system installed.
PM online reading was 31.84 mg/Nm3 (25TPH) & 85.36 mg/Nm3 (10 TPH) D: Waste Management 20 Type of Waste Generated Boiler Ash (Potash Ash): /39MT day Used oil: 600kl/annum Empty drum /container: Sent to local recycler.
Fermentation sludge: Used in Dryer 21 Facility of Storage/ Disposal section for making Boiler Ash- the UnitDDGS has Agreement for ash Disposal with Bhanwala Cooperative L/C SocietyLtd, Sonipat and same valid upot 31.03.2024.
22 Disposal of waste Used Oil: Details of Agreement with recycler: M/s Universal Hydrolubes, Karnal, Haryana.
Drum /containers - to local recycler.
23 Status of Grant of Valid upto 30.09.2027 authorization, if any (copy enclosed as Annexure-2) 2.1 Observations of joint inspecting team
1. The Unit is engaged in the production of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) / Ethanol with consented capacity of 140 KLD (70 KLD old plant + 70 KLD new plant) using Grain as raw material. During inspection, the Unit was found operational.
2. HSPCB has issued Consent to Operate under the "Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974" and under the "Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981" which is valid up to 30.09.2027 and copy of the same is annexed at Annexure-1. 5
3. The Authorization under the "Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016" is valid upto 30.09.2027 and copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-2.
4. The Unit has not installed environmental data display board at the entrance of the main gate.
Water Consumption
5. The Unit is meeting its freshwater demand through four (04) nos. of bore wells. Electromagnetic flow-meter is installed at all the bore wells and has maintained logbook. As per logbook records, average groundwater abstraction from bore well is measured as 478.15 KLD.
6. The Unit NOC for the groundwater abstraction is expired on 18.06.2022 and Unit has applied for NOC (Annexure-3) from Haryana Water Resources (Conservation, Regulation & Management) Authority for groundwater abstraction. Effluent Management
7. The Unit has installed two distillation plant of 70 KLD each (total consented capacity of 140 KLD) along with 02 nos of separate MEE plant. During inspection, one MEE was found operational. Samples were collected from MEE feed, MEE concentrate and MEE condensate. During the visit, the flow meter reading of MEE inlet showed (New Plant) flow rate - 20.92 m3/hr (totalizer reading- 649223693.17 m3) and MEE Concentrate showed flow rate -- 1423.4 1/hr (totalizer reading-7167546 L).
8. The raw-spent wash generated is sent to Decanters (centrifuge system) for separation of solids and thin slope. The thin slope is fed to MEE for further treatment.
Table-1: Analysis of raw spent-wash, MEE concentrate (slope) and MEE condensate Parameter Raw Spent MEE MEE Concentrate wash pH 3.60 Condensate 3.50 3.80 TSS -- BDL --
COD 67200 915 221600
BOD 35873 414 133796
TDS 9596 44 52850
TS 49970 -- 152430
Colour 20 BDL 148
All values are in mg/1 except pH
All the Lab analysis report of CPCB is annexed at (refer Annexure-4).
9. The concentrated spent-wash/thick slope is fed to Dryer section where Distillers Dried Grain Solid(DDGS) /Animal Feed Supplement Dried (AFSD) is produced & the same is used as animal feed/poultry feed.
6
10. The unit has provided the invoices regarding sale of AFS (Animal Feed Supplement) to different customers for the month of Jan 2024 to March 2024. The copy of the invoices provided is attached as Annexure-5.
11. The Unit has not maintained proper logbooks regarding raw-spent wash /thin slope generation, Fermenter sludge generation, Boiler ash generation & disposal etc. Condensate Polishing Unit (CPU)
12. The Unit has installed Condensate Polishing Unit (CPU) for treatment of other effluent such as condensate of MEE, cooling tower blow down, DM waste/reject etc. During inspection, CPU was found operational. CPU comprises of Equalization tank → pH correction tank →Primary tube settler →Buffer tank → Anaerobic digestor →Aeration tank → Secondary clarifier → Coagulation tank→ Secondary tube settler →CWT→ PSF →Activated Carbon Filter → FWT → Softener →Reuse in process. As per logbook, the Unit is recycling 569 KLD of CPU treated water within the process/cooling tower make up water.
13. During the visit at CPU, foaming was observed in the Equalization, aeration tank & Secondary Clarifier indicating improper operation of Condensate polishing treatment system. The final treated effluent after tertiary treatment is collected in a final collection tank. The effluent (final outlet) sample were collected from the final treated effluent collection tank.
X X X X
14. The joint team collected effluent sample from CPU Inlet, Aeration Tank, CPU Outlet to ascertain the performance of CPU. Analysis result is presented below:
Table-2: Analysis result of effluent (at various location) at CPU.
Parameters CPU Inlet Aeration Outlet of Final Treated
(Sample Tank Secondary tube effluent of CPU
code HR- settler (CPFW)
1) (Code-CPSC)
pH 4.9 6.7 6.9
Colour 66 BDL BDL
BOD 4565 425 160
COD 8632 821 458
TSS 1460 97 94
TDS 3576 1504 1332
MLSS 1042
MLVSS 921
All values are in mg/l except pH
The Lab analysis report of CPCB is annexed at (refer Annexure-4).
15. It is evident from the lab analysis report that operation of the CPU is not proper. Analysis result of sample collected from the outlet of CPU shows pH-6.9, COD -- 458 mg/l, BOD - 160 mg/l, TSS-94 mg/l and Total Dissolved Solid - 1332 mg/l & which 7 indicates that the treated water of CPU is not suitable to be used in cooling tower makeup due to high BOD-160, COD-458 and TDS
- 1332 mg/l.
16. During inspection, sample were collected from Aeration tank. MLSS and MLVSS value is observed as 1042 mg/l and 921 mg/l respectively. The MLSS and MLSS value is low in the Aeration tank.
17. The Unit has installed Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) with capacity 20 KLD for treatment of sewage. STP comprises of Collection tank, MBBR, Tube Settler, ACF, MGF, Sludge Drying Bed. During inspection, STP was in operation, however the ACF & MGF was non-operational. Treated sewage from STP is used for gardening/irrigation purpose inside the industrial campus. During the visit, the tertiary treatment system was not operational and the effluent after treatment from Tube settler was being discharge for land application. The feed pipeline to tertiary treatment system was broken. Samples were collected from inlet and final discharge point of STP. Analysis result is presented below:
Table-3: Lab analysis results of STP (Sewage treatment plant) Parameter STP Aeratio STP outlet Discharge Discharge s Inlet n (sample Standard# Standard (Sample Tank code:S-2) (Standard as (Notified under' code:S-1) per the F.(P) Rules, Hon'ble NGT 1486] order dated (applicable for 30.04.2019) all mode of disposal including land) pH 7.20 7.30 5.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 TSS 1505 85 20 <100 TDS 2652 2664 - --BOD 676 104 10 30
COD 2136 277 50 -- NO3-N 1.50 1.0 - -- TP 18.0 17.40 1.0 -- MLSS 615 MLVSS 413 The STP is not functioning properly Note : All values are in mg/1 except pH
NS Standard not specified for uses of treated sewage in gardening purpose.
# Discharge Standards as per Hon'ble NGT order dated 30.04.2019 in the matter of Original Application No. 1069/2018 Nitin Shankar Deshpande Vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Lab analysis report of CPCB is annexed at (refer Annexure -
4) It is evident from the lab analysis results that BOD, COD & TP (Total Phosphorous) value is higher in STP outlet than the prescribed standard indicating STP non-complying with the prescribed discharge standard.
8
18. The Unit has 02 nos. of boiler of 25TPH & 10 TPH capacity & also installed Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System (OCEMS) at both boiler stack and during the visit online PM reading of 25TPH boiler showed 32 mg/Nm3 and 85.36 mg/Nm3 at 10 TPH boiler. The OCEMS is connected with CPCB Server.
19. The Unit has installed ESP as pollution Control Device in its 25 TPH boiler and has installed bag filter in the 10 TPH boiler.
20. The emission monitoring of the boiler was conducted by the HSPCB team at the stack during the joint visit and suspended particulate matter values found as 48.3 mg/ Nm3 (25 TPH) and 77.0 mg/Nm3 (10 TPH) against the prescribed standard of 80.0 mg/ Nm3. The lab analysis report is attached as Annexure-4.
21. The Unit has given work order on 01.04.2023 for Ash removal from the boiler to M/s The Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd, Sonipat and work order/contract is valid upto 31.03.2024 and copy of the work order is attached as Annenure-
6.
22. The Unit should provide adequate measure so as to avoid any fugitive emission /dust emission to the nearby areas/land. The conveyor belt requires to be covered (hood cover) or enclosed so as to reduce the fugitive emission during the transportation of boiler fuel /rice husk.
23. The Unit should provide proper housekeeping at the boiler section as metal scraps and solid waste were found lying.
24. The Unit has not maintained the logbook records of the Hazardous waste generated and disposed by the industry as per the Hazardous & Other Waste Rules, 2016.
25. The Unit provided the Manifest dated 30.06.2023 for used oil /waste oil disposal by M/s Universal Hydrolubes Village- Darar, Karnal for Hazardous and other Waste. The Unit should not store hazardous waste for period not exceeding 90 days. Groundwater monitoring
26. Groundwater samples were collected by the joint team from four bore wells (one outside the Unit). Lab analysis result is presented below:
Table-4: Groundwater analysis result for physical parameters Parameters Borewell- Borewell Borewell- Borewell BIS BIS IS 1 (within -2 3 (outside 10500:2 10500:2012 the Unit) (within (within the the Unit 012 (Permissible (Sample the Unit) premises) (Accepta limit in code-BS-1) Unit) (BS-3) installed at ble absence of (BS-2) Sh.Ramesh Limit) alternative Kumar source) land (BS-4) pH 7.5 7.8 8. 1 7.6 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 9 Colour BDL BDL BDL BDL 05 15 TDS 1060 1088 1144 1082 500 2000 Total Hardness 484 488 577 503 200 600 (TH) Total Alkalinity 299 307 411 426 200 600 Cond. 1671 1655 1724 1598 -- --
Chloride as 205 215 151 164 250 1000 Cl-
Fluoride
0.55 0.61 0.56 0.47 1.0 1.5
as F
Sulphate
as 195 192 203 158 200 400
SO42-
NO3-N 5.38 5.03 3.86 6.59 45 No relaxation
COD 3.0 BDL 9.0 16 -- --
K+ 5.47 5.58 6.2 6.03
All values are in mg/1 except pH, conductivity & colour The Lab analysis report of CPCB is annexed at (refer Annexure-4). It is evident from the above analysis report that all the parameters from above sampling locations are within BIS IS 10500:2012 Standard (Permissible limit in absence of alternative source). The analysis results of groundwater samples collected from Borewell located outside the Unit premise (borewell at Sh. Ramesh Kumar land near the drain) was found within the permissible limit as per BIS IS 10500:2012, however value of COD was 16 mg/l in the groundwater sample, indicating possible potential threat to groundwater and need urgent attention towards cleaning of the drain (behind the Unit) and stoppage of any industrial effluent discharge into the drain.
Monitoring of Drain
27. It was observed that a Drain is passing behind the Units boundary wall (along the boundary wall of the distillery Unit). During the visit, the joint team collected water samples from the Drain behind the boundary wall of the industry at (i) upstream of the Unit and (ii) downstream of the Unit. The Drain at the downstream was found to be covered with sludge, however at the upstream the sludge formation/deposition was not observed on the surface.
X X X X Table-5: Analysis results of water samples collected from Drain Parameters Drain sample location.
Drain (Up-stream Drain (down-stream of the '
of the Unit) (Sample Unit)
code-USD) (sample code-DSD)
10
pH 7.8 7.0
Colour 30 24
Total Suspended 249 4730
Solid
TDS 1180 1780
Sulphate as 157 64
S042
Nitrate as NO3-N 1.20 11.0
PO4-P 6.70 13.0
Potassium as 37 34
K+
COD 429 9268
ROD 213 4850
All values are in mg/1 except pH & color
The Lab analysis report is annexed at (refer Annexure-4). Analysis result of sample collected from the Drain (downstream of the Unit) has high COD and BOD levels as 9268 mg/l and 4850 mg/1 respectively. There was no other source of such high BOD and COD concentration in between the upstream and downstream location of the drain. The higher BOD and COD along with high concentration of TDS revealed that the Unit discharges its industrial effluent (untreated /partially treated) in to the drain and appropriate action shall be taken by the HSPCB in this regard. The Unit should de-sludge and clean the entire drain and dispose of the sludge in a scientific manner. However, no discharge from the Unit was found into drain during the time of inspection. Visit of Agriculture field outside the Unit premise
28. The joint team visited the agricultural field of the complainant located behind the Unit premise. The complainant informed that the ash coming from the boiler of industrial Unit is falling on the crop of his land and damaging the crop. It was observed that the ash has been deposited on the leaf of the crop grown by the complainant. The growth of the crop was observed to be low as compared with the crop having no fly-ash deposition. The complainant informed that his 2-3 Acre land is affected with the ash coming from the industry. It is found that the crop growth of the complainant has been affected with the fly-ash deposition and the Units boiler is close to the crop field and the ash deposition will eventually reduce the yield and grain/crop production. No spillage from the drain during the time of inspection was found into agriculture field of complainant. Necessary compensation should be paid to the affected land owner by the Unit.
X X X X 3.0 CONCLUSION
The Unit has valid consent to operate (CTO) under Water and Air Act and Authorization under Hazardous and other Waste Rules. The Unit was operational during the visit. The whole stillage/ spent-wash is treated through Decanter, MEE and thereafter dried in the Dryer for producing DDGS.
11 The Unit has given work order on 01.04.2023 for Ash removal from the boiler to M/s The Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd, Sonipat and work order/contract is valid upto 31.03.2024. The CPU (installed for the treatment of MEE condensate, cooling tower blow down, DM waste) was not being operated properly and quality of CPU treated effluent is not suitable for recycling and reusing in cooling tower makeup water. The Unit needs to take corrective measures in CPU plant for its suitability to use in the cooling tower make up water as it may lead to scaling, microbial growth/fouling etc. in the cooling tower.
The Unit has installed STP, however, the tertiary treatment was not operational and partial treated effluent (BOD- 104 mg/l, COD
- 277 mg/l and TDS-2644 mg/l was being discharge on the land. The STP treated effluent is non-complying with the prescribed standard for gardening purpose.
The groundwater quality within and outside the premises was found meeting the BIS standard. However, the bore well located outside the Unit (located at Sh. Ramesh Kumar land) near to the drain was having COD value of 16 mg/1 indicating possible potential threat to groundwater and need urgent attention towards cleaning of the drain (behind the Unit) and stoppage of any industrial effluent discharge into the drain. During the visit, it was observed that the drain behind the distillery Unit was fully covered with the sludge up to 2-3 km downstream. The Unit requires to de-sludge the entire drain and disposed of the sludge in a scientific manner.
The presence of high concentration of BOD, COD, TSS & TDS in the downstream of the Drain compared to the upstream drain reveals that the Unit intermittently discharges its untreated /partially treated effluent into the Drain.
During the visit, it was observed that the ash is deposited on the leaf of the crop grown by the complainant. The growth of the crop was observed to be less as compared with the crop having no fly- ash deposition. It is observed that the crop growth of the complainant has been affected with the fly-ash deposition and the same will eventually reduce the yield and grain/crop production. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE Based on observations made in preceding paras of this report, the following recommendations are made:
(A) Effluent Management (i) The Unit should properly operate & maintain the aeration
tank and clarifier (secondary) of CPU and accordingly rectify the problem at the earliest.
(ii) The Unit should properly operate 86 maintain the CPU and enhance the performance of CPU so as to meet the desired water quality for reuse & recycle of the treated effluent with in the process/cooling tower make up water.
(iii) The Unit should properly operate and maintain the STP and optimize the performance of its STP so as to meet the prescribed standard.
(iv) The Unit should provide Environmental Data display board at the entrance of the Gate and regularly update it. 12
(v) The Unit should take appropriate steps in cleaning and de- sludging of the Drain (flowing adjacent to the Unit) and should provide the action taken report to SPCB.
(vi) The Unit should not discharge their effluent into the drain and strictly follow the consent condition of the HSPCB.
(vii) The presence of high concentration of COD, BOD, TSS & TDS in the downstream of the Drain compared to the downstream drain reveals that Unit intermittently discharges its untreated /partially treated effluent into the drain. Therefore, SPCB should ensure strict periodical surveillance of the industry/drain and ensure no industrial wastewater discharge into the drain.
(viii) The Unit should maintain proper logbooks regarding raw spent-wash /thin slope generation, Fermenter sludge generation, Boiler ash generation and disposal.
(3) Air Pollution and Control
(i) The Unit should ensure regular water sprinkling and also
take other necessary measures in and around the boiler to minimize the dust /ash dispersion in the ambient environment.
(ii) The Unit should provide easy ladder (spiral /scaffold type) ladder at stack of 25 TPH boiler instead of monkey ladder to ensure safe access to sampling port for emission monitoring as per CPCB Emission Regulations Part-Ill.
(iii) The Unit should provide proper housekeeping at the boiler section.
(iv) The conveyor belt at the boiler should be covered (hood cover) or enclosed so as to control the fugitive emission during the transportation of fuel /rice husk. The Unit should provide adequate measure so as to avoid any fugitive emission /dust emission to the nearby areas/land.
(v) The Unit should pay the compensation to the affected land owner, which may be assessed by the HSPCB in consultation with agriculture department.
(C) Waste Management
(i) The Unit should maintain proper logbook record of Hazardous and other waste generated and disposed by the industry as per the Hazardous & Other Waste Rules, 2016.
(ii) The Unit should not store Hazardous waste for period not exceeding 90 days.
Reply by Respondent no. 1
6. Claiming that no notice was served on the Respondent No.1 and that the Respondent No.1 which came to know about the present case from visit of the Joint Committee on 14.03.2024, Respondent No.1 filed its reply via email dated 24.09.2024 alongwith I.A. No. 468/2024 for condonation of delay in filing of the reply.
13
7. In view of the reasons mentioned I.A. No. 468/2024 is allowed and the delay in filing of reply is condoned.
8. In its reply Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the application is misconceived and lacks bonafides. The Respondent No.1 has further submitted that the constant endeavor of the Respondent No. 1 is to ensure its absolute compliance with all applicable instructions, notifications, guidelines, regulations, circulars etc. issued by the concerned statutory authorities and the relevant provisions of the applicable legislations including inter alia the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and "prevailing environmental norms", respectively. The Unit employs state-of-the-art technologies and advanced methodologies to optimize water usage and treat the byproducts of the manufacturing process, thereby, substantially minimizing waste and preventing any discharge. The Joint Committee Report clearly records that the Respondent No. 1 has all the requisite equipment installed at the Unit in order to achieve and maintain its ZLD obligations and the Respondent No. 1 strictly complies with the prevailing environmental norms and standards in this respect. The only issue being highlighted by the Joint Committee is that allegedly, on the date of the Joint Committee Inspection, such equipment was not operating in an optimal manner. The conclusions arrived at by the Joint Committee are (i) premised on mere surmises and conjectures; (ii) contrary to its own findings in its Report and ancillary reports prepared by the CPCB; and (iii) based on entirely circumstantial evidence with the sequitur of the Joint Committee Report being inconsistent with the Joint Committee's own findings. The Respondent No.1 has pleaded that findings of the Joint Committee Report were indeed, faulty and without any basis, and instead a product of poor analysis and sample collection and mentioned illustrative examples of the lacuna in the Joint Committee 14 Report. The Respondent No.1 has further pleaded that the said findings are a mere aberration to the normal parameters at which the Unit operates and have arisen solely due to a mechanical malfunction within the STP unit on the date of inspection on account of regular mechanical wear and tear. Additionally, without prejudice, Respondent No. 1 has also undertaken to comply with all the recommendations as stipulated in Paragraph 4 of the Joint Committee Report and abide by any direction which may be issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal and has also mentioned the action taken regarding the same. The relevant parts of the submissions made in the reply will be adverted to and deliberated upon in the course of discussion and adjudication of the issues involved in the later part of this order.
9. HSPCB issued show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 to the Respondent No.1 on the basis of Joint Committee Report. The Respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 19.06.2024 to the show cause notice. In its reply the respondent No.1 submitted that it has engaged Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune, Maharashtra (VSI) to undertake the adequacy report of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Condense Processing Unit (CPU) installed by the unit. VSI, Pune inspected the Unit on 12.06.2024 and submitted the CPU Adequacy Report and STP Adequacy Report.
10. The Respondent No.1 submitted the CPU Adequacy Report on 12.08.2024 and STP Adequacy Report on 06.09.2024 to HSPCB. As per CPU Adequacy Report the design basis of CPU Plant is adequate for 140 KLPD of said Distillery. Based on the recommendation made by the VSI, Pune, the Unit upgraded its STP. The unit was revisited by VSI, Pune on 16th -17th August, 2024. The sample of STP was collected by VSI Pune and analyzed through M/s Enyirochem Testing and Consultancy LLP, Plot No 165, 1st Floor, Sec-25. Part-II, HUDA Panipat As per report submitted by 15 the Unit through said laboratory, parameters of STP are within permissible limit.
11. Third party inspection of the Unit was also done by the team of IIT Delhi deputed by CPCB on 04.07.2024. As per the inspection report submitted by the IIT Delhi on 18.08.2024, the parameters of effluent after treatment from CPU and STP were found complying with the permissible limits.
12. HSPCB team inspected the Unit on 27.08.2024 to check the compliance of observations made by the joint committee constituted by this Tribunal and filed Status Report. In the status report HSPCB referred to show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 issued to the Respondent No. 1, submission of reply dated 19.06.2024 by the Respondent No. 1 alongwith VSI CPU and STP Adequacy Reports and inspection of the unit by IIT, Delhi on 18.01.2024 referred to above and verified compliance by the Respondent No. 1-Unit regarding compliance with observations made in the Report of the Joint Committee. Relevant part of the Status Report regarding compliance by the Respondent No. 1 reads as under:-
"Status report on behalf of Haryana State Pollution Control Board in compliance of order dated 05.07.2024.
X X X X
9. That the said unit was inspected by the HSPCB team on 27.08.2024 to check the compliance of observations made by the joint committee constituted by Hon'ble NGT. The compliance status of the observations are as under:-
Sr. Observation Compliance
No.
1. A. Effluent i. The unit is complying with the
Management observation by operating and
i. The unit should maintaining its aeration and
properly operate & secondary clarifier
16
maintain the aeration
tank and clarifier
(Secondary) of CPU
and accordingly
rectify the problem at
earliest.
ii. The Unit should ii. As per VSI Pune report the
property operate & CPU installed by the unit is
maintain the CPU and adequate to meet out the
enhance the results for reuse and recycle.
performance of CPU so The latest status report dated
as to meet the desired 18.08.2024 received from IIT
water quality for reuse Delhi and analysis report
& amp; recycle of the issued by HSPCB laboratory
treated effluent with dated 10.09.2024 parameters
in the process/cooling are within permissible limits,
tower make up water. The treated effluent is recycled
and reused into cooling tower.
iii. The Unit should iii. The unit has upgraded its
properly operate and STP on the basis of
maintain the STP and recommendations issued by
optimize the VSI Pune. The unit has
performance of its STP provided one more equalization
so as to meet the tank has increased the
prescribed standard retention time and has
replaced the membrane of PSF
and ACF. The latest status
report dated 18.08.2024
received from IIT, Delhi and
analysis report issued by
HSPCB laboratory dated
10.09.2024 parameters are
within permissible limit. The
treated effluent is reused for
gardening purpose.
iv. The unit should iv. The unit has submitted
provide purchase order dated
Environmental data 06.07.2024 for installation
display board at the of LED display board at the
entrance of the gate entrance of the Unit but
and regularly update same has not been
it. installed.
v. The Unit should The unit submitted request to
take appropriate steps Irrigation Department for
in cleaning and de- cleaning and de-sludging and
sludging of the Drain the same has been complied by
(flowing adjacent to the Irrigation Department in the
the Unit) and should month of June 2024. However, provide the action sludge still noticed in the drain taken report to SPCB. adjoining to the unit during the inspection on 27.08.2024 17 vi. The Unit should not vi. During inspection on discharge their 27.08.2024 by HSPCB team no effluent into the drain discharge of trade effluent was and strictly follow the found into drain. consent condition of the HSPCB.
vii The presence of vii. The drain has been cleaned high concentration of by Irrigation Department for COD, BOD, TSS & TDS free flow of water into drain by in the downstream of replacing hume pipes with the Drain compared to temporary steel bridge the downstream drain reveals that Unit intermittently discharges its untreated/ partially treated effluent into the drain. Therefore SPCB should ensure strict periodical surveillance of the industry drain and ensure no industrial wastewater Discharge in to the drain.
viii. The Unit should viii. The unit has start maintain proper maintaining logbook of spent-
logbooks regarding wash but not maintained
raw spent-wash/thin the logbook for Fermenter
slope generation. sludge generation. Boiler
Fermenter sludge ash generation as per
generation. Boiler ash suggestion given by the
generation and Joint Committee.
disposal.
2. B. Air Pollution and i. Regular sprinkling is being
Control done by the unit in and around
i. The Unit should the boiler for dust suppression.
ensure regular water
sprinkling and also
take other necessary
measures in and
around the boiler to
minimize the
dust/ash dispersion
in the ambient
environment.
ii. The Unit should ii. Monkey ladder has been
provide easy ladder provided by the unit. No step
(spiral/scaffold type) has been initiated by the
ladder at stack of 25 unit to provide
TPH boiler instead of spiral/scaffold type ladder
monkey ladder to to 25 TPH Boiler.
ensure safe access to
sampling port for
emission monitoring
18
as per CPCB Emission
Regulations Part-III.
iii. The Unit should iii. The unit has provided
provide proper covered shed for storage of
housekeeping at the biomass multi fuel such as rice
boiler section husk, mustered husk.
iv. The conveyor belt iv. The unit has covered the
at the boiler should be conveyor belt to control fugitive
covered (hood cover) or emissions of fuel.
enclosed so as to
control the fugitive
emission during the
transportation of
fuel/rice husk. The
unit should provide
adequate measure so
as to avoid any
fugitive emission/dust
emission to the nearby
areas/land.
v. The unit should pay v. The unit has intimated that it
the compensation to has taken the 9 acre land
the affected land adjoining to the unit on lease
owner, which may be related to the complainant and
assessed by the his family.
HSPCB in consultation
with agriculture
department.
3. C.Waste i. The unit has obtained
Management authorization under HOWM
i. The Unit should Rules, 2016 valid upto
maintain proper 30/09/2027 for the used oil.
logbook record of The unit has made agreement
Hazardous and other with authorized service
waste generated and provider for disposal of
disposed by the hazardous waste. The
industry as per the hazardous waste generated in
Hazardous & Other the form of used oil of quantity
Waste Rules, 2016. approximately 40 ltrs is found stored in drums Copy of analysis report by HSPCB laboratory, Panchkula is attached as Annexure-R4
10. That the unit was inspected by the team on 15.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 on basis of complaint filed by Sh. Ramesh Kumar. The unit was found discharging effluent into adjoining drain No.6 during the inspection done by the team of HSPCB. Therefore, interim environmental compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- was imposed upon the unit by HSPCB vide order No. 1/254186/2024 dated 16/07/2024 on the basis of violations made by the unit. The unit has deposited the interim environment compensation amount on 06.08.2024. Copy of 19 environmental compensation order with deposition receipt is enclosed as Annexure-R5.
11. That the additional environment compensation of Rs 33,90,000/- has also been recommended to Head Office vide office letter No.HSPCB/PR/2024/1261 dated 16/09/2024 for the violation found during the visit by Joint Committee. Copy of Environment compensation recommended to Head Office is enclosed as Annexure-R6."
13. We have heard submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel for HSPCB have reiterated the factual submissions made in the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 and status report filed by HSPCB regarding compliance status of Respondent No. 1.
15. As per reply dated 23.09.2024 filed by Respondent No. 1, Globus Agronics Limited was incorporated in 1993 and established its Respondent No. 1-Unit in 1994 with an installed capacity of 14.4 million bulk liters per annum and the installed capacity was expanded to 70 million bulk liters in FY 2010-2011. No material has been placed on record regarding obtaining of environmental clearance and CTE/CTO at the time of expansion of installed capacity of 14.4 million bulk liters per annum to 70 million bulk liters per annum in FY 2010-2011. Further there is no material on record regarding expansion of installed capacity of 70 million bulk liters per annum to 100 million bulk liters per annum. As per EC dated 03.04.2023 the Respondent No. 1 applied to MoEF & CC for environmental clearance for expansion of grain based distillery from 100 KLPD to 205 KLPD by new installation of 105 KLPD Grain based Ethanol plant alongwith Co-generation power plant from 3.0 MW to 4.6 MW at Village Chulkana, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana on which EC dated 03.04.2023 was granted by MoEF & CC with the conditions mentioned therein.
20
16. The Respondent No. 1 is stated to have carried out expansion of its capacity from 100 KLPD to 140 KLPD in the year 2023 and to have scheduled remaining expansion of 65 KLPD for the upcoming years.
17. There are two (2) distillation plants installed at the Unit with a total capacity of 70 KLPD each. The Unit is engaged inter alia, in operations relating to distillation, manufacturing, packaging, sale and distribution of extra neutral alcohol, rectified spirit, ethanol, country liquor, and Indian- made foreign liquor. The Respondent No. 1 employs 1958 employees with 400 persons being directly and / or indirectly employed at the Unit.
18. The Respondent No. 1 has obtained consent to operate dated 20.09.2023 from HSPCB under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1986 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which is valid upto 30.09.2027.
19. The Respondent No. 1 has obtained authorization dated 20.10.2023 under Rule 5 of the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement Rules) 2006 from HSPCB which is also valid upto 30.09.2027.
Abstraction and Utilization of ground water
20. In para 10 of EC dated 03.04.2023 reference has been made to water requirement of and effluent treatment by the Respondent No. 1 and the same reads as under:-
"10. Total fresh water requirement after expansion will be 952 CMD which will be met from ground water. Combined application has been submitted to HWRA for renewal of existing NOC and for additional abstraction of 400 KLPD groundwater vide Application No. HWRA/IND/R/2022/197 dated 21 19.06.2022 & is under process. Existing effluent generation is 548 CMD which is treated through Condensate Polishing Unit/Effluent Treatment Plant of capacity 600 CMD. Proposed effluent generation (Process Condensate 436 CMD, CT blowdown 15 CMD, DM plant reject & washing 55 CMD, Boiler blow-down 13 CMD will be 519 CMD will be treated through additional Condensate Polishing Unit/Effluent Treatment Plant of capacity 600 CMD. Raw stillage (1215 TPD) will be sent to decanter followed by MEE and dryer to project DDGS. Domestic waste water is being/will be treated in STP of capacity 20 KLPD. The plant is being/will be based on Zero Effluent discharge system and treated effluent/water will not be discharged outside factory premises."
21. As per Specific Condition No. (v) in EC dated 03.04.2023 the total fresh water requirement after expansion shall not exceed 952 m3/day, which will be sourced from the groundwater. No groundwater recharge shall be permitted within the premises. Industry shall construct a rain water storage pond of 60 days capacity and the accumulated water to be used as fresh water thereby reducing fresh water consumption.
22. It may be observed here that in view of the possibility of contamination of groundwater, groundwater recharge within the premises of the Respondent No. 1-Unit has been prohibited. The very reason for such prohibition of recharge of groundwater within the premises of the Respondent No. 1-Unit will apply to construction of rain water storage pond of 60 days capacity. In view of likelihood of contamination of groundwater by such storage of rain water within the premises of Respondent No. 1-Unit, we are of the considered view that the aspect of construction of such rain water storage and its use needs to be reviewed by MoEF & CC/HSPCB in view of the possibility of contamination of groundwater by such rain water storage and appropriate action may be taken in this regard on the basis of such review.
23. As per the Joint Committee report, the Unit is meeting its freshwater demand through four (04) bore wells. Electromagnetic flow-meter is 22 installed at all the bore wells and the Respondent No.1 has maintained logbook. As per logbook records, average groundwater abstraction from bore wells is measured as 478.15 KLD.
24. In its report the Joint Committee has also mentioned that the Respondent No.1 had obtained permission for ground water extraction from the Haryana Water Resources (Conservation, Regulation and Management) Authority (HWRA) valid for the period from 18.06.2021 to 18.06.2022. On expiry thereof the Respondent No.1 submitted combined application dated 19.06.2022 to the HWRA for renewal of existing NOC and for additional abstraction of 400 KLPD which is stated to be pending with it.
25. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the Joint Committee did not observe any omission on the part of the Unit with reference to ground water abstraction from the borewell and the logbook maintained with respect to the same. The Respondent No.1 has relied on the guideline in the Consolidated MoJS Guidelines to Regulate and Control Ground Water Extraction in India updated up to 29.03.2023 issued by the Central Ground Water Authority that if an application for renewal is submitted in time, i.e., 90 (ninety) days before the expiry thereof, and the CGWA/the respective State or Union Authority is unable to process the application in time, the NOC shall be deemed to be extended till the date of renewal of the NOC and claimed that the Unit operated by Respondent No. 1 is in compliance with the CGWA Guidelines.
26. In the present case admittedly the Respondent No.1 submitted its application for permission to HWRA on 19.06.2022 after expiry of its HWRA permission on 18.06.2022 and not 90 (ninety) days before the expiry thereof. Therefore, the guideline relied upon by the Respondent No.1 23 will not be applicable and NOC can not be deemed to have been extended till the date of renewal of the NOC by HWRA with the consequence that abstraction of ground water by the Respondent No.1 is liable to be treated to be without HWRA permission .
27. It may be observed here that said application for permission is stated to be still pending with HWRA. There seems to be no valid reason/justification for such long pendency of the application for permission with HWRA. Such long pendency of the application defeats the very purpose of creation of the Central Ground Water Authority and State Ground Water Authorities for proper conservation, extraction, recharge and management of ground water. Such long pendency of the application also gives rise to inference of lack of proper monitoring, regulation and management of groundwater by HWRA.
28. In these peculiar facts and circumstance, HWRA is directed to look into the matter and dispose of the application dated 19.06.2022 for permission pending with it expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (if not already disposed of).
Compliance with EC condition of maintaining Zero Liquid Discharge
29. As per EC dated 03.04.2023 Respondent No. 1 is a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) unit. Specific Condition No.(vi) in EC dated 03.04.2023 reads as under:-
"(vi) Spent Waste/stillage shall be sent to the decanter followed by the Multiple Effect Evaporator and dryer to form DDGS. DDGS to be used as cattle feed. The MEE & Drier condensate, spent lees, WTP Rejects, Boiler & Cooling tower blowdowns, washings etc., is shall be treated in the 'condensate Polishing Unit' (CPU).
STP shall be installed to treat domestic waste water. The plant shall be based on 'Zero Liquid Discharge' system and no 24 effluent/treated water shall be discharged outside factory premises."
Effluent Treatment System
30. In EC dated 03.04.2023 details of process emissions, generation and its management and details of solid waste/Hazardous waste generation and its management were noticed as under:-
"12. Details of Process emissions generation and its management:
• APCE ESP with a stack height of 44.2 m & 42.67 m is installed with the existing 25 TPH & 10 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/ Agro waste fired boiler respectively for controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3 • APCE ESP with a stack height of 50 m will be installed for controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of SO mg/Nm3 for the proposed 30 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler by replacing existing 10 TPH boiler. • Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System is being/will be installed with the stack and data will be transmitted to CPCB/SPCB servers.
• CO 2 (157 TPD) generated during the fermentation process is being/will be collected and sold to authorized vendors as per local demand.
13. Details of solid waste/Hazardous waste generation and its management:
• DDGS ( Distilled Dried Grains Stillage) ( 104 TPD) is being/will be sold as cattle feed.
• Boiler ash (57 TPD ) generated from the boiler is being/will be supplied to brick manufacturers in covered vehicles and given to farmers also.
• Used oil & grease (0.5 Kilolitres per annum) is being/ will be sold to authorized recyclers.
• ETP/CPU sludge (1.2 TPD) and STP Sludge (0.01 TPD) is being/will be used as manure."
Working of CPU
31. In its report the Joint Committee has mentioned that during inspection by the Joint Committee on 14.03.2024 out of 02 separate MEE plants installed with the two distillation plants of 70 KLD each one MEE was found operational. Foaming was observed in the Equalization, 25 aeration tank & Secondary Clarifier indicating improper operation of Condensate polishing treatment system. Samples were collected from the final treated effluent collection tank, CPU Inlet, Aeration Tank, CPU Outlet. Analysis result of sample collected from the outlet of CPU showed pH-6.9, COD -- 458 mg/l, BOD - 160 mg/l, TSS-94 mg/l and Total Dissolved Solid - 1332 mg/1 which indicated that the treated water of CPU is not suitable to be used in cooling tower makeup due to high BOD-160, COD-458 and TDS - 1332 mg/l. As per analysis result of sample collected from Aeration tank MLSS and MLVSS value was 1042 mg/l and 921 mg/1 respectively which was low.
32. In its report the Joint Committee has also observed that the Unit has not maintained proper logbooks regarding raw-spent wash /thin slope generation, Fermenter sludge generation, Boiler ash generation & disposal etc. Working of STP
33. In its report the Joint Committee has mentioned that at the time of its visit STP was in operation. However, during the visit, the ACF & MGF and the tertiary treatment system was not operational. The feed pipeline to tertiary treatment system was broken. Samples were collected from inlet and final discharge point of STP and as per the lab analysis results BOD, COD & TP (Total Phosphorous) value was higher in STP outlet than the prescribed standard indicating STP was non-complying with the prescribed discharge standard.
34. The Respondent No.1 has raised objections to the report of the Joint Committee. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that there is no conclusion arrived at by the Joint Committee that the inoperability of one of the MEEs either had an adverse effect on the ability of the Unit to 26 treat the effluent or that the same resulted in a violation of the Unit's ZLD obligations.
35. Respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the observation that the Unit has not maintained proper logbooks regarding fermenter sludge generation is baseless as such sludge is not generated at the Unit considering that the same is a grain - based distillery. The Respondent has denied that any request for logbooks was made and produced copies of log books from April 2024 to August 2024.
36. Respondent No. 1 has submitted that a bare perusal of Joint Committee Report would demonstrate that there are various lacuna in the findings contained therein and demonstrate that the entire process is riddled with errors, which renders Joint Committee Report liable to be withdrawn. Indeed, the Annual CPCB Inspection indicates that as the Respondent No. 1's Unit is in complete compliance with the requirements to meet ZLD discharge norms as on 04.07.2024. Critically, the Respondent No. 1's Unit was found to be in compliance after an examination of the same components of the Respondent No. 1's Unit that were examined by the Joint Committee. The same indicates that the findings of Joint Committee Report were indeed, faulty and without any basis, and instead a product of poor analysis and sample collection.
37. The Respondent No.1 has mentioned illustrative examples of the lacuna in Joint Committee Report as follows:
i. Admittedly, the TDS at the STP Inlet reading has been stated to be 2652 mg/l in Joint Committee Report, while the STP Outlet surprisingly reading reads as 2664 mg/l. It is curious that the TDS values at the inlet of the STP is lower than that at the TDS values at the outlet of the STP, as the STP would not allow for such increase. In fact, if the samples had been 27 properly collected during Joint Committee Inspection, the same would stipulate that the TDS value at the inlet of the STP is higher than that at the outlet of the STP. Accordingly, this difference in TDS values indicates defective sample collection during Joint Committee Inspection or during the testing thereof. This in turn casts serious doubt over the entire sample collection process during Joint Committee Inspection and the testing of the same.
ii. Further, while Joint Committee Report has claimed that the TDS value is excessive, there is no parameter provided for therein that would allow for such a conclusion as there is no value provided for in the "Discharge Standards" column of the lab analysis reproduced therein.
Without indicating the discharge standard that has been violated, no allegation of a violation can be made against the Respondent No. 1 and the Unit.
38. The Respondent No.1 has further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid, while the TDS, BOD, COD and TP parameters have been found to be supposedly in violation of established discharge standards, the said findings are a mere aberration to the normal parameters at which the Unit operates and have arisen solely due to a mechanical malfunction within the STP unit on the date of inspection on account of regular mechanical wear and tear. This has been recorded in Joint Committee Report, but unfortunately, there is no mention of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 immediately rectified the same. Despite the Respondent No. 1's request for a fresh sample collection after the malfunction was corrected, the Joint Committee paid no heed to this reasonable request and nonetheless, proceeded with relying upon the incorrect sample collected during Joint Committee Inspection. As the Joint Committee is undoubtedly aware, such technical difficulties regularly arise in respect of 28 the functioning of such large - scale industries akin to the Unit. Joint Committee Report also contends that the analysis of the samples collected at the Unit's CPU during Joint Committee Inspection conveys that the BOD, COD and TDS values of such samples renders the same unsuitable for utilization in the cooling tower makeup. It is pertinent to mention that the effluents generated at the Unit are treated through a state-of-the-art process which ensures the Unit's consistent compliance with ZLD requirements. However, the misconceived approach of the Joint Committee is evident from the fact that Joint Committee Report claims that the TDS values of the samples collected from the CPU are higher than permissible, whereas the TDS values in such sample is significantly lower than the parameter laid down by this Tribunal.
39. The Respondent No.1 has submitted without prejudice to the aforesaid, that even if the BOD and COD values in the aforesaid sample are treated as being accurate, the treated water is still suitable for usage in the cooling tower makeup, as the aeration process within the cooling tower with the help of its induced draft fan reduces the BOD and COD content in the treated water, and the said treated water is then sent back into the CPU, maintaining a closed loop. There is no discharge of the said treated water, and ergo, the ZLD requirement is met by the Respondent No. 1.
40. It may be observed here that the Respondent No.1 has not substantiated its claim as to illegality in taking of samples and analysis thereof and did not raise any objection in this regard and did not apply for analysis of second part of the samples and submissions made do not make valid ground for discarding the Joint Committee Report. 29
41. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that HSPCB issued show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 to the Respondent No.1. 19.06.2024. The Respondent No. 1 furnished its detailed response dated 19.06.2024 to the same which demonstrated that the Respondent No. 1 was in compliance with the prevailing environmental norms and standards including those pertaining to ZLD.
42. The Respondent No.1 has relied on the CPCB Inspection Report based on inspection of the Unit by CPCB on 04.07.2024 to assert that the same establishes that the Respondent No. 1 is complying with the prevailing environmental norms and standards and that there is no discharge into the adjoining drain by the Unit.
43. In its report the CPCB mentioned the compliance status of the Unit as under:-
"22. Compliance Status As per Discharge Norms: Complying (Operating on ZLD Mode) Over all compliance status: Complying"
44. However, a perusal of the CPCB Report shows that data regarding Effluent Treatment Plant was provided by the Respondent No.1 and neither support documents nor log book was provided to CPCB. No details regarding sludge generation, management and disposal and ash disposal were provided by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 did not provide MEE Feed, MEE Concentrate, process condensate and ETP energy consumption log book. CPCB recommended that the Respondent No.1 should maintain proper MEE Feed, MEE Concentrate, process condensate and ETP energy consumption log book and the same should be provided and that ETP adequacy and mass balance study be done by the approved agency and the report be submitted.
30
45. The Respondent No. 1 apprised HSPCB that it had engaged the services of an expert body - the Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI), Pune to conduct a thorough inspection and evaluation of the Unit so as to establish that the Unit was operating in accordance with the prevailing environmental norms and standards and the Respondent No. 1 furnished the reports on the adequacy of the CPU and the STP prepared by VSI, Pune on the Unit to the HSPCB on 05.08.2024 and 05.09.2024.
46. In its CTP Adequacy report VSI, Pune has submitted that the designed capacities of effluent treatment plants i.e. decantation of whole stillage as primary effluent treatment system followed by Integrated & Standalone multiple effect thin stillage evaporation plant as secondary treatment system followed by mingler to produce DWGS & dryer to produce DDGS as final treatment are adequate for 140 KLPD grain-based distillery plant and that Performance of GSL effluent treatment plants were found satisfactory considering the whole stillage generation and the treatment scheme adopted during the visit. However it is pertinent to observe that during the visit only one 70 KLPD was under operation and their average production was observed 65.75 KLPD (1st -- 10th June 2024). Assessment made on the basis of operation of one 70 KLPD Plant with production of 65.75 KLPD less than 50% of the capacity can not be considered to be accurate and proper regarding operation of two 70KLPD Plants with production at full capacity of 140 KLPD. Further, the conclusions and suggestions recorded by VSI, Pune in its CTP Adequacy Report point to deficiencies and non compliances. During the visit online analyzer monitoring system installed to monitor pH, COD, BOD, TSS at outlet of treated water was found to be not connected to CPCB & HSPCB server; ash and dust particles were observed in land and air; and SPM of 25 TPH boiler which was operational was recorded to be 60 mg/Nm3. VSI, 31 Pune recommended to the Respondent No.1 to improve performance of CPU Unit. The conclusions and suggestions given by VSI, Pune in CPU Adequacy Report are reproduced as under:-
"Conclusions:
i) During the visit rice is used as a feedstock for production of alcohol. GSL has achieved 13.5 to14°/0 alcohol in fermented wash
ii) The unit has installed two 70 KLPD distillation plant and their total capacity of 140 KLPD to produce RS or ENA or fuel ethanol. During the visit only one 70 KLPD was under operation and their average production was observed 65.75 KLPD (1st --
10th June 2024). Plant was produced fuel ethanol from broken rice.
iii) GSL has installed integrated evaporation followed by standalone evaporation for concentration of thin slop from 4% solids to 30% solids. In integrated evaporation alcoholic vapors of analyzer column is utilized for concentration of thin slop. This help to reduce the steam consumption.
iv) The designed capacities of effluent treatment plants i.e. decantation of whole stillage as primary effluent treatment system followed by Integrated & Standalone multiple effect thin stillage evaporation plant as secondary treatment system followed by mingler to produce DWGS & dryer to produce DDGS as final treatment are adequate for 140 KLPD grain-based distillery plant.
v) Performance of GSL effluent treatment plants were found satisfactory considering the whole stillage generation and the treatment scheme adopted during the visit.
vi) GSL should analyze the raw material and all ETP samples regularly from NABL accredited laboratory.
vii) GSL has installed 2 Nos. mass flow meters at the outlet of analyzer column in distillation & 2 Nos. outlet of concentrated thick slop in SMEE plant. Mass flow meters are connected to HSPCB/CPCB servers and are operational.
viii) GSL has installed 600 M3/day capacity of CPU plant for treatment of process condensate, cooling tower blow down water, CIP water and floor washing water. During the visit total inlet feed of CPU plant was observed 230 M3/day.
ix) GSL has installed online analyzer monitoring system i.e. pH, COD, BOD, TSS at outlet of treated water but it is not connected to CPCB & HSPCB server. It should be connecting to CPCB & HSPCB server. During the visit we have recorded online analyzer parameters pH- 7.52, COD - 45.7 mg/L, BOD - 15.1 mg/L and TSS - 42.9 mg/L.
x) GSL has installed two boilers 10 TPH and 25 TPH with steam pressure 67 Kg/cm2 (g), steam temperature 490° C. As well as two TG set having capacity 0.8 MW & 2.8 MW. Rice husk is used for as fuel for boiler. During visit 25 TPH boiler was found under operation and boiler load was 17.5 TPH. ESP is installed as air pollution control equipment for collect the dust/ash from flue gas produced in the boiler.
32
xi) GSL has installed online Suspended Particulate matter (SPM) monitoring system and connected to CPCB & HSPCB server. During visit SPM recorded 60 mg/Nm3.
xii) GSL has four borewell for withdrawal of water. Unit has taken NOC from Government of Haryana, Haryana Water Resources Authority for extraction of 552 M3/day ground water from existing four borwells. But its validity expired on 18/06/2024. Now, GSL has applied for renewal of NOC on 19/06/2022.
xiii) GSL has installed 60 TPD CO2 plant for recover CO2 generated in fermentation process.
Suggestions:
i) GSL should maintain housekeeping properly Distillery, CPU & Boiler section.
ii) GSL should maintain proper logbook for distillation, evaporation, decanter, ribbon mixer/mingler, DDGS dryer, CPU, and boiler.
iii) GSL should maintain proper record of fresh waste consumption, recycled water, and actual fresh water consumption.
iv) GSL should remove the scrap & waste material scattered in distillery premises and clean the premises properly as early as possible.
v) GSL should display the board and process flow diagram entrance of CPU plant.
vi) All CPU tanks need to be paint and labeling properly with names, dimension, and capacity of each tank.
vii) CPU log book to be maintain properly with its inlet, outlet & recycle quantity. Also maintain the record of sludge generation and disposal.
viii) Daily analysis to be carried out of inlet, outlet parameters COD, BOD, TDS, TSS etc. in CPU unit.
ix) Treated water BOD level found 16.9 mg/L. Unit should put efforts for improve the performance of CPU unit.
x) Proper training to be provided to CPU plant operators.
xi) GSL should maintain the record of ash production and disposal properly.
xii) During the visit, ash and dust particle observed in land and air. GSL should take necessary action for bring down the dust & ash in and around boiler section.
xiii) GSL should maintain proper housekeeping in boiler section.
xiv) GSL should maintain proper logbook record of Hazardous waste and other waste generated and disposed by the GSL as per the Hazardous & other waste rules 2016.
xv)GSL should comply the show cause notice given by HSPCB by vide letter no. HSPCB/PR/2024/266, dated 31/05/2024 on priority."
47. In its STP Adequacy Report VSI, Pune has recommended certain improvements in the STP and its observations and recommendations for sewage treatment are reproduced as under:-
33
"vii. Observations and recommendations for sewage treatment According to the table above, most treatment units in the STP have adequate capacity to handle sewage of 15 KLPD, except for the tube settler. Additionally, the majority of electromechanical units are capable of treating the sewage. However, despite the current system's ability to manage 15 KLPD sewage, consistently achieving the prescribed limits for treated sewage such as COD (50 mg/l), BOD (10 mg/l), and TSS (20-50 mg/l) as per the consent to operate is challenging. This difficulty may be due to the high organic load present in the incoming sewage. Annexure 7 includes third-party analysis reports.
To address this issue, the following process improvements are recommended:
To address this issue, the following process improvements are recommended:
> Complete retention time should be provided to the septic tank and equalization tank to allow heavier solids to settle at the bottom.
> A new equalization tank with a retention time of 6-8 hours should be installed, and the overflow from the existing equalization tank should be directed into this new tank. > Sewage feed pumps should be installed on the new equalization tank.
> The STP should be operated continuously for at least 20 hours/day to maintain appropriate flow and batch type operation should be avoided.
> Replace the MBBR media with new media to promote better growth of microbial culture.
> Add isolated cultures to the aeration tank at regular intervals to maintain MLSS and the Food to Microorganism (F/M) ratio.
> Implement recirculation of activated sewage in aeration tanks.
> Ensure adequate retention time for the tube settler, and adjust the inlet flow from the upward side installing a baffle wall to maintain a proper laminar flow pattern and proper distribution of water within the settler which helps settling solid particles in the conical bottom.
> Continuously monitor and analyze the inlet and outlet of the STP.
These improvements are aimed at enhancing treatment efficiency, meeting regulatory standards, and optimizing the performance of the STP in effectively treating wastewater. Depending on the performance of the STP after the aforementioned modifications, advanced treatment technologies may be installed as needed to achieve the required parameters. viii. Staff & Environmental Laboratory The distillery management already has an Environment Management Cell; however, it is recommended to appoint a separate STP chemist with an environmental education background. It is also suggested to analyze samples from every unit of the STP regularly to ensure smooth operation and 34 maintain records of analyses, as well as properly document flow meter readings in a logbook"
48. The Respondent No.1 has submitted that it has complied with the recommendations of the Joint Committee, VSI, Pune and CPCB.
49. In the Status Report HSPCB has mentioned about upgradation of STP and covering of conveyor belt but has not covered all aspects highlighted in the reports of the Joint Committee, VSI, Pune and CPCB. HSPCB has also mentioned that logbooks for fermenter sludge generation, and boiler ash generation have not yet been maintained and the Environmental Data Display Board and spiral/scaffold type ladder to 25 TPH Boiler have not yet been provided and also noticed sludge in the drain but did not issue any remedial directions for compliance.
50. HSPCB is directed to look into all the aspects of compliance with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee, VSI and CPCB and to issue appropriate directions for requisite compliance in time bound manner.
Maintenance of Green Belt and Utilization of STP Treated Water
51. Specific condition No. (xv) in the EC dated 03.04.2023 mentions that the green belt of at least 5-10 m width has been developed in 2.427 hectares i.e., 35.28 % of total project area with tree density @ 2500 trees per hectares, mainly along the plant periphery and same will be maintained. Selection of plant species shall be as per the CPCB guidelines in consultation with the State Forest Department and native species shall be developed. Records of tree canopy shall be monitored through remote sensing map.
35
52. In its report the Joint Committee has mentioned that treated sewage from STP is used for gardening/irrigation purpose inside the industrial campus. At the time of visit by the Joint Committee the STP was not working properly and was non compliant and the effluent after treatment from Tube settler was being discharged for land application without further treatment.
53. However, the Joint Committee and HSPCB have not mentioned anything about raising and maintenance of green belt by the Respondent No.1 in compliance with above quoted EC Conditions.
54. In its STP Adequacy Report VSI, Pune has mentioned that the Unit Utilizes the treated sewage for gardening and greenbelt development on the premises. Approximately 5.52 acres of land is allocated by the Unit for horticulture and green belt development where the treated sewage is applied to meet water requirements.
55. However, VSI, Pune has not made any assessment regarding adequacy of the land for utilization of the treated swage by way of horticulture and green belt development throughout the year particularly during monsoon season.
56. The Respondent No.1 has not produced any cogent material to establish utilization of treated sewage for horticulture, gardening and development of green belt thorough the year particularly the monsoon season and possibility of discharge in the drain adjoining the Unit in violation of EC ZLD condition is not thereby ruled out. Discharge in the drain
57. The Joint Committee inspected the Respondent No.1 unit on 14.03.2024 and observed in its Report dated 28.05.2024 that the drain 36 passing along the boundary wall of the distillery Unit was covered with sludge at the downstream but no sludge formation/deposition was observed on the surface at the upstream. The Joint Committee also observed in its Report that the drain behind the distillery Unit was fully covered with the sludge up to 2-3 km downstream. The Joint Committee collected water samples from the Drain behind the boundary wall of the industry at (i) upstream of the Unit and (ii) downstream of the Unit. Analysis result of sample collected from the drain at the downstream of the Unit) has high COD and BOD levels as 9268 mg/l and 4850 mg/1 respectively. The Joint Committee observed that there was no other source of such high BOD and COD concentration in between the upstream and downstream location of the drain and concluded that the higher BOD and COD along with high concentration of TDS revealed that the Unit discharges its industrial effluent (untreated /partially treated) in to the drain. The Joint Committee recommended that appropriate action may be taken by the HSPCB in this regard and that the Unit should de-sludge and clean the entire drain and dispose of the sludge in a scientific manner.
58. It may be observed here that prior to inspection by the Joint Committee on 14.03.2024, the unit was inspected by HSPCB on 15.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 on the basis of complaint filed by the applicant Ramesh Kumar. During its inspection HSPCB Team found the unit discharging effluent into adjoining drain No.6. Interim environmental compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- was imposed upon the unit by HSPCB vide order No. 125416612024 dated 16.07.2024 in respect of the violations made by the unit. The unit deposited the interim environmental compensation amount on 06.08.2024.
59. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that there is a glaring discrepancy in the Joint Committee Report qua the alleged samples 37 collected from the drain adjoining the Unit, through which the Joint Committee Report has claimed demonstrate intermittent discharge of effluent into such drain by the Unit. Respondent No. 1 had sealed the erstwhile outlets to such drains at the Unit long ago and ergo, the Unit does not have any outlet connected to any drain adjoining the Unit. Further, Respondent No. 1 confirms that there are no temporary flexible pipes located at the Unit that would allow the discharge of any effluent in the manner claimed in the Joint Committee Report. As such, going forward there is no scope for there to be any alleged discharge of effluent from the Unit. In fact, the Joint Committee Report clearly records that "no discharge from the Unit was found into drain during the time of inspection". As such, there is no basis for the Joint Committee Report to claim that there has been any supposed discharge by the Unit into the drain or that the poor environmental condition thereof is the liability of the Unit. Indeed, the report of the Annual CPCB Inspection indicates that as the Respondent No. 1's Unit is in complete compliance with the ZLD norms even as on 04.07.2024. Critically, the Respondent No. 1's Unit was found to be in compliance after a thorough examination of the same components of the Respondent No. 1's Unit that were examined by the Joint Committee. Further, even during the Annual CPCB Inspection, it was found that there was no discharge from the Respondent No.1's Unit into the drain adjoining the Unit. With respect to the alleged samples collected from the drain during the joint inspection, which have been relied upon to contend that Respondent No. 1 supposedly intermittently discharges effluent into the said drain, it is evident that such an allegation is premised on an evidently incorrect presumption that there is no other source of discharge into the drain leading to a finding of high BOD and COD. It must be noted that the said drain is a common drain that adjoins multiple factories and / or industrial units both upstream and downstream of the Unit. Further, as 38 the drain is a common drain that flows through Samalkha, the high concentration of BOD and COD could be a result of discharges from car washes, detergents from household units, zinc coating undertaken in factories prevalent in Samalkha, domestic housing complexes and colonies, car repair shops etc. Any one of these factories and / or units may be responsible for the presence of the effluent in the drain behind the Unit. It is reiterated that no discharge from the Unit was found in the drain by the Joint Committee on the date of inspection, and any samples allegedly collected from "upstream" and "downstream" of the drain were done without the presence of the Respondent No. 1's representatives. It is pertinent to mention that all samples that were properly collected were done in the presence of the Respondent No. 1's representatives with the Joint Committee requiring such representatives to attest to the collection of samples by affixing their signatures on the same. However, no such authentication exercise was carried out in respect of any sample (s) collected outside the Unit, including but not limited sample (s) allegedly collected from the drain adjoining the Unit. Further, there is no reason for the Unit to discharge any effluents into the drain as there is a consistent and pressing need for usage of the treated water within the Unit. Accordingly, the alleged non - compliance is based only mere surmises and conjectures, as is evident from the unverified samples collected from the drain outside the Unit, which could not have been sourced from the Unit as the outlets of the Unit to the drain were sealed on the date of the Joint Inspection. The Respondent No.1 has further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is completely compliant with the requirement to maintain ZLD. The Respondent No.1 made payment of the EC on 06.08.2024 under protest and entirely without prejudice to its rights and contentions in law, including but not limited to challenging the imposition of the EC and the calculation thereof.
39
60. In the present case the Joint Committee observed sludge up to 2-3 kms in the drain passing along the boundary wall of the distillery Unit at the downstream but did not find any sludge formation/deposition on the surface at the upstream. The Joint Committee collected water samples from the Drain behind the boundary wall of the industry at (i) upstream of the Unit and (ii) downstream of the Unit. There was no requirement of presence of and attestation by the representative of the Respondent No.1 at the time of taking of samples from upstream and downstream of the drain which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. It may be added here that the Respondent No.1 did not challenge the report by raising any objections or seek any re-sampling for analysis. The Respondent No.1 has not produced any cogent material to substantiate its assertion as to existence of other industrial unit project or activity between/in the vicinity of the Respondent No.1 Unit and between the Unit's upstream and downstream of the drain adjoining its wall as being the source of discharge of the effluent/sludge. In its reply the Respondent No. 1 denied generation of sludge by it but in EC dated 03.04.2023 details regarding generation and disposal of sludge are mentioned. The Respondent No. 1 has not maintained logbooks regarding generations and disposal of sludge and has not produced the relevant record regarding safe and scientific disposal of the same. In view of this fact and in the absence of any other source the Joint Committee has rightly observed that such high BOD and COD concentration in between the upstream and downstream location of the drain along with high concentration of TDS revealed that the Unit discharges its industrial effluent (untreated /partially treated) in to the drain and there is no valid reason/ground to discard the same.
61. The Joint Committee recommended that the Respondent No.1 Unit should de-sludge and clean the entire drain and dispose of the sludge in a 40 scientific manner but the Respondent No.1 Unit has not complied with this recommendation.
62. The Respondent No.1 has submitted in its reply that despite not being responsible for the condition of the drain and in order to maintain a healthy surrounding area, the Respondent No. 1 had requested the Irrigation Department, Panipat, to de-sludge the drain in February 2024. However, unfortunately due to a delay on the Irrigation Department's end, this was only undertaken in May 2024. As such, the drain has already been de-sludged in terms of the recommendation contained in the Joint Committee Report.
63. However, the Respondent No. 1 has not produced copy of letter written by it to the Irrigation Department and any response or any other document received from the Irrigation Department regarding de-sludging of the drain in June 2024.
64. In the Status Report HSPCB has also mentioned that the Respondent No.1 unit submitted request to Irrigation Department for cleaning and de-sludging and the same has been complied by the Irrigation Department in the month of June 2024.
65. However, HSPCB has not obtained and furnished copy of letter written by the Respondent No.1 to the Irrigation Department, the work order issued by the Irrigation Department for de-sludging of the drain, report regarding execution of the work and removal and safe disposal of the sludge.
66. It may be observed here that in the status report, HSPCB has mentioned that sludge was still noticed by HSPCB in the drain adjoining to the unit during the inspection on 27.08.2024 but HSPCB has not 41 mentioned when, how, wherefrom the sludge was discharged in the drain and also about the quantity thereof and what remedial steps were taken/required to be taken for removal and safe disposal of the sludge. Possible threat to ground water.
67. The Joint Committee took ground water samples from the borewells of the Respondent No.1 and borewell of the applicant. The groundwater quality within and outside the premises was found meeting the BIS standard. However, as per the analysis results of groundwater samples collected from Borewell located outside the Unit premises (borewell at Sh. Ramesh Kumar's land near the drain) value of COD was 16 mg/l. The Joint Committee has opined that the same indicated the possible potential threat to groundwater and needed urgent attention towards cleaning of the drain (behind the Unit) and stoppage of any industrial effluent discharge into the drain.
68. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that in respect of the claims concerning the borewell located outside the Unit, the JC Report fails to stipulate what legal standard or parameter has been violated that would support the conclusion that there has been some malfeasance on part of Respondent No. 1 in this regard. Indeed, it is contrary to the settled principles of law that without indicating the discharge standard that has been violated, no allegation of a violation can be made against the Respondent No. 1 and the Unit. Further, it must also be noted that the borewell is used both by the Unit and the Applicant, and hence, it is improbable that any supposed increase in the COD parameter is solely at the Respondent No. 1's behest. Further, it is difficult to comprehend why a "possible threat to ground water" has been found when the JC Report 42 itself notes that the groundwater samples collected from the borewell were found to be within the permissible limit.
69. A basic shift in the approach to environment protection occurred initially between 1972 and 1982. Earlier, the concept was based on the "assimilative capacity" rule as revealed from Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration which assumed that science could provide policy makers with the information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the UN General Assembly Resolution on "World Charter for Nature, 1982", the emphasis shifted to the "precautionary principle" which was subsequently reiterated in the Earth Summit of 1992 in its Principle 15. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 647 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the precautionary principle" and "the polluter pays principle" are essential features of sustainable development and are part of our environmental law. Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 mandates this Tribunal to apply the precautionary principle. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harm activity. The main purpose of the "precautionary principle" is to ensure that a substance or activity posing a threat to the environment is prevented from adversely affecting the environment, even if there is no conclusive scientific proof of linking that particular substance or activity to environmental damage.
70. In view of the recommendation of the Joint Committee HSPCB is directed to accord urgent attention towards cleaning of the drain 43 (behind the Unit) and stoppage of any industrial effluent discharge into the drain and periodically verify the factual position and issue appropriate directions to the Respondent No. 1 and also the Irrigation Department in accordance with law for cleaning of the drain and removal and safe disposal of sludge.
Management and Disposal of boiler ash
71. Para 11 of EC dated 03.04.2023, which mentions power requirements of the Unit and pollution control measures, reads as under:-
"11. Total power requirement after expansion will be 4.6 MW which will be sourced from 4.6 MW co-generation power plant. 30 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler will be installed by replacing 10 TPH boiler. APCE ESP with a stack height of 44.2 m and 42.67 m is installed with 25 TPH and 10 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler for controlling the particulate emission within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3. APCE ESP with stack height of 50 m will be installed with proposed 30 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler for controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3. Industry has existing 1X380 KVA DG set and one proposed 1x750 KVA DG set will be used as power backup during power failure and stack height (5.5 m) will be provided as per CPCB norms t the proposed DG set."
72. Even though the Respondent No. 1 has carried out expansion of its plant from 100 KLPD to 140 KLPD but the Respondent No. 1 has not yet installed 30 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler by replacing 10 TPH boiler so far for controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3.
73. The relevant Specific Conditions imposed in EC dated 03.04.2023 are reproduced as under:-
"(vii) ESP with a stack height of 44.2 m is already installed with the existing 25 TPH Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler for co controlling the particulate emissions within the statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3. ESP (five fields) with a stack height of SO meters will be installed with the 30 TPH Biomass/Rice husk/Agro waste fired boiler for controlling the particulate emissions within the 44 statutory limit of 50 mg/Nm3. Coal shall not be used as fuel. At no time, the emission levels shall exceed the prescribed standards. In the event of failure of any pollution control system installed by the unit, the respective unit shall not be restarted until the control measures are rectified to achieve· the desired efficiency. Performance assessment of pollution control devices/ systems will be conducted annually. As proposed existing 10 TPH boiler shall be dismantled and disposed in an environmentally-sound manner
(viii) Boiler ash (57 TPD) will be used for brick manufacturing and supplied to brick manufacturers. PP shall use biomass like rice husk/agro waste as fuel for the proposed boiler. PP shall meet 15 % of the total power requirement from solar poser by generating power inside plant premises/adjacent/nearby areas.
Approach to the project site to the nearest highway will be maintained by the Industry.
(xi) Co2 (157 TPD) generated during the fermentation process will be collected by utilizing CO2 Scrabble and sold to authorized vendors
(xiii) Process organic residue and spent carbon, if any, shall be sent to Cement and other suitable industries for its incinerations. ETP sludge, process inorganic & evaporation salt shall be disposed of to the TSDF."
74. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has mentioned that One of the two boilers at the Unit [with a capacity of 25 tons per hour], is fitted with a state-of-the-art Electro-Static-Precipitator [a filtration device that removes particles such as smoke from a gas stream]; with the second boiler [with a capacity of 10 tons per hour], having a robust bag filter installed to control the emission of dust. Both boilers have turbines connected to them, and both boilers are fueled by biomass and solid fuel comprising of bagasse, rice husk, and mustard husk. Air Pollution Monitoring Systems [APMS] have also been installed on the chimneys of the boilers, and the data from both chimneys are regularly transmitted to the CPCB and HSPCB.
75. As mentioned in para no. 13 of EC dated 03.04.2023 boiler ash was to be supplied to brick manufacturers and was to be given to farmers also. As per the Specific Condition no. (xiii) imposed in the EC dated 03.04.2023 45 boiler ash is to be used for brick manufacturing and has to be supplied to the brick manufacturers.
76. In its report the Joint Committee has made the following observations regarding working of boilers, installation of pollution control devices and ash removal and disposal :-
"18. The Unit has 02 nos. of boiler of 25TPH & 10 TPH capacity & also installed Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System (OCEMS) at both boiler stack and during the visit online PM reading of 25TPH boiler showed 32 mg/Nm3 and 85.36 mg/Nm3 at 10 TPH boiler. The OCEMS is connected with CPCB Server.
19. The Unit has installed ESP as pollution Control Device in its 25 TPH boiler and has installed bag filter in the 10 TPH boiler.
20. The emission monitoring of the boiler was conducted by the HSPCB team at the stack during the joint visit and suspended particulate matter values found as 48.3 mg/ Nm3 (25 TPH) and
77.0 mg/Nm3 (10 TPH) against the prescribed standard of 80.0 mg/ Nm3. The lab analysis report is attached as Annexure-4.
21. The Unit has given work order on 01.04.2023 for Ash removal from the boiler to M/s The Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd, Sonipat and work order/contract is valid upto 31.03.2024 and copy of the work order is attached as Annenure-
6.
22. The Unit should provide adequate measure so as to avoid any fugitive emission /dust emission to the nearby areas/land. The conveyor belt requires to be covered (hood cover) or enclosed so as to reduce the fugitive emission during the transportation of boiler fuel /rice husk.
23. The Unit should provide proper housekeeping at the boiler section as metal scraps and solid waste were found lying."
77. However, the Joint Committee did not look into the aspect of compliance of above referred EC conditions regarding supply of boiler ash to brick manufacturers and utilization thereof for brick manufacturing.
78. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the air sample report annexed with the JC Report also finds that all parameters are in compliance with the requisite standards and reiterated that apart from the Respondent No. 1's stringent internal measures to ensure that no 46 discharge of effluents occurs at the Unit, the Respondent No. 1 also ensures that the Unit is compliant with all relevant air pollution norms and regulations.
79. The Respondent No.1 submitted a copy of the agreement between the Respondent No.4 and the Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Limited for the disposal / removal of the ash generated at the Unit, photographs of the steam flow totalizer and the manual loader installed on the boilers at the Unit and the emission data for the period of 01.01.2024 to 14.03.2024 to the Joint Committee.
80. It may be observed here that the Respondent No. 1 entered into agreement with the Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd. valid from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 for ash removal from 25 and 17 TPH Boiler on day to day basis without any accumulation in its premises and deployment of sufficient dumper with driver and a tractor type loader in the unit for ash removal outside factory premises. By the above said agreement the Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd. was also required to submit agreement with Land owners for dumping of ash for sole purpose of land filling. However, the Respondent No.1 has merely produced a copy of the agreement between the Respondent No. 1 and the Bhanwala Cooperative L/C Society Limited for the disposal/removal of the ash generated at the Unit and has not produced copies of log book regarding generation, removal and disposal of boiler ash and also record regarding supply of boiler ash to brick manufacturers for brick manufacturing and also regarding giving of the boiler ash to the farmers.
81. Further, it may be observed that the above said agreement was valid upto 31.03.2024. The Respondent No. 1 and HSPCB have not mentioned in their reply/status report anything about extension of the said 47 agreement or execution of fresh agreement for the disposal/removal of the ash generated at the Unit.
82. Respondent No. 1 does not stand relieved of its obligation for proper storage, management and disposal of boiler ash by merely entering into an agreement for removal and disposal of boiler ash and has to ensure proper disposal of boiler ash for brick manufacturing by supplying the same to brick manufacturers and also by giving the same to the farmers.
83. As per the agreement the Bhanwala Co-operative L/C Society Ltd. was also required to submit agreement with Land owners for dumping of ash for sole purpose of land filling but the Respondent No. 1 has not produced any material on record to show that any such agreements were submitted to it. This Tribunal considered the disposal of fly ash in low lying areas as an unscientific mechanism and passed directions for proper disposal of the fly ash. Directions for evolving proper mechanism in this regard were given vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 744/2022 Moharram Ali Vs State of U.P. & Ors. with O.A. No. 277/2021 Liyakat Ali Vs State of U.P. & Ors. and vide order dated 18.01.2024 passed in O.A. No. 369/2022 Sachin Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
84. HSPCB is directed to look into the aspect of safe and scientific disposal of boiler ash and conduct requisite audit regarding compliance by the Respondent No.1 with EC conditions for ensuring removal and disposal of boiler ash in scientific and environment friendly manner.
Storage, Management and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
85. In its report the Joint Committee has mentioned that the Respondent No.1 produces waste of Used oil measuring 600kl/annum. In its report the Joint Committee observed that the unit has not maintained 48 the logbook records of the Hazardous waste generated and disposed by the industry as per the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The unit provided the Manifest dated 30.06.2023 for used oil/waste oil disposal by M/s. Universal Hydrolubes village-Darar, Karnal for Hazardous and other Waste. The Joint Committee recommended that the unit should maintain proper logbook record of Hazardous and other waste generated and disposed by the industry as per the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The unit should not store Hazardous waste for period not exceeding 90 days.
86. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has denied that there is any hazardous waste generated at the Unit and pleaded that there is waste oil that is a byproduct of the manufacturing process. The Respondent No. 1 disposes of the same in a manner consistent with the prevailing environmental norms and standards. Towards this end, the Respondent No. 1 has entered into an agreement with M/s Universal Hydrolubes, Indri Road, Village Darar, Karnal for disposal of waste oil for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2025.
87. The Respondent No.1 has produced copy of agreement with M/s. Universal Hydrolubes, authorised by HSPCB vide Regn. No. HSPCB/Consent/:329984923 KARCTO30548436 Dated: 06.02.2023 valid upto 31.03.2027, for purchase/transport/store/treat/recycle and dispose of the used oil purchased by it in accordance with the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and other applicable pollution control laws enforced from time to time. As per the agreement payment for sale of used oil is to be made through NEFT and delivery is to be made to representative of M/s Universal Hydrolubes 49 authorized by email and record pertaining to disposal of used oil is to be maintained by both the parties.
88. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the Respondent No. 1 submitted Form - 10 to HSPCB and that the allegation that the Unit has not maintained logbook records of the hazardous waste generated is misplaced. In its reply the Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that the Joint Committee report does not provide any basis to contend that the manifest provided by the Unit for disposal of used oil / waste oil was violative of the prevailing environmental norms and standards, and no standards are indicated to show that the Unit was storing hazardous waste for a period exceeding ninety (90) days.
89. However, it may be observed here that Respondent No. 1 has merely produced copies of the agreement and Form 10 supplied to HSPCB and the Respondent No.1 has not produced any other record regarding generation, management and disposal of used oil.
90. In the status report HSPCB has merely mentioned about obtaining of authorization from HSPCB and entering into agreement with authorized service provider for disposal of hazardous waste by Respondent No. 1 but HSPCB has not looked into the aspects of maintenance of logbooks and disposal of hazardous waste and has merely mentioned about storage of 40 liters oil in drums at the time of inspection without mentioning about requisite labelling of the drums and also about period of storage.
91. A perusal of Form 10 supplied by the Respondent No.1 to HSPCB shows that the same lacks Sender's Authorization number, Manifest Document number Transporter's name and address (phone number and email), Transporter's Registration number, Sender's signature under 50 sender's certificate, Transporter's acknowledgement of receipt of wastes and Transporter's signature under the same.
92. HSPCB is directed to conduct periodical audit regarding compliance with Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, maintenance of logbooks and proper storage and disposal of hazardous and other wastes. Uploading of information on the website
93. EC dated 03.04.2023 imposed condition requiring the Respondent No. 1 to upload on its website annual environmental statement ending with 31st March every year and six monthly compliance report.
94. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the Respondent No. 1 regularly submits half - yearly compliance reports to the HSPCB, which establishes its bonafide as being compliant with the prevailing environmental norms but the same are not easily accessible. Compliance with other recommendations of the Joint Committee, VSI and CPCB
95. The Respondent No.1 has mentioned in its reply that in compliance with the recommendations in the Joint Committee Report, the Respondent No. 1 has already installed a hood cover over the conveyor belt. The Respondent No. 1 has also proceeded to increase the height of the boundary walls from 1.5 meters to 5.5 meters in strengthen its compliance and to further ensure that there is no fugitive emission / dust emission to the nearby areas / land. The Respondent No. 1 has placed an order for the installation of the environmental display board on 06.07. 2024. The vendor commissioned with the task of building the environmental display board has apprised the Respondent No. 1 that the delivery of the same would 51 take around (4) four months as the display board contains specific technical specifications that have to be met. The Respondent No. 1 undertakes to place their record of compliance with the finding in Paragraph 2.1 [4] of the JC Report, once the delivery and installation of the display board is undertaken.
96. Respondent No.1 is directed to take requisite remedial measures for compliance with the EC Conditions and recommendations made by the Joint Committee, VSI, Pune and CPCB and uploading of Annual Environmental Statement and Six monthly report on its website.
Imposition, Recovery and Utilization of Environmental Compensation
97. The applicant made complaint dated 15.12.2023 to HSPCB. The Regional Officer, HSPCB, Panipat inspected the unit on 15.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 and reported violations about illegal discharge of trade effluent into drain no. 6 by the Respondent No. 1-Unit. Sample of effluent from discharge point was collected. As per Analysis Report No. 4719 dated 13.03.2024 results were found exceeding the prescribed limits. The Regional Officer, HSPCB, Panipat vide letter dated 21.06.2024 recommended the case for imposing environmental compensation penalty for violation of the environmental laws committed by M/s Haryana Organics. The matter was placed before the Committee constituted for assessment of environmental compensation in its meeting held on 02.07.2024 and the committee finalized environmental compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- by considering the violation period of 90 days i.e. from 15.12.2023 (date of complaint on CM Window) to 13.03.2024 (day before Joint Inspection carried out on 14.03.2024 by the Joint Committee 52 constituted by this Tribunal) by applying the formula i.e EC= PI x N x R x S x LF = 80 x 90 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.
98. The Respondent No. 1 has submitted that on account of the threat of the HSPCB to take coercive action against the Respondent No. 1 in the event of non-payment, it made payment of the EC on 06.08.2024 under protest and entirely without prejudice to its rights and contentions in law, including but not limited to challenging the imposition of the EC and the calculation thereof. However, admittedly the Respondent No.1 did not file any appeal against order imposing environmental compensation and the Respondent No.1 made a representation dated 06.08.2024 to the HSPCB which is stated to be pending.
99. In its status report HSPCB has submitted that the Regional Officer, HSPCB, Panipat has recommended the additional environmental compensation of Rs. 33,60,000/- to Head Office vide office letter No.HSPCB/PR/2024/1261 dated 16.09.2024 for the violations for 113 days from 14.03.2024 (date of inspection of the Joint Committee) to 04.07.2024 (date of inspection of IIT, Delhi) for violations found during the visit by Joint Committee which is stated to be pending.
100. HSPCB may take appropriate action for imposition and recovery of additional environmental compensation from the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law after granting opportunity of being heard to the Respondent No. 1 in compliance with principles of natural justice. Claim of the applicant for compensation
101. The Applicant has alleged that the Respondent No. 1-Unit is discharging polluted water, chemicals, and gases and causing air pollution in his adjoining agricultural land measuring about 20 acres and is thereby destroying/adversely affecting his agricultural crops. 53
102. The Joint Committee visited the Respondent No. 1-Unit and agricultural land of the Applicant located behind the unit premises and observed in its report as under:-
" ...the complainant informed that the ash coming from the boiler of industrial Unit is falling on the crop of his land and damaging the crop. It was observed that the ash has been deposited on the leaf of the crop grown by the complainant. The growth of the crop was observed to be low as compared with the crop having no fly- ash deposition. The complainant informed that his 2-3 Acre land is affected with the ash coming from the industry. It is found that the crop growth of the complainant has been affected with the fly-ash deposition and the Units boiler is close to the crop field and the ash deposition will eventually reduce the yield and grain/crop production. No spillage from the drain during the time of inspection was found into agriculture field of complainant. Necessary compensation should be paid to the affected land owner by the Unit.
X X X X X
• During the visit, it was observed that the ash is deposited
on the leaf of the crop grown by the complainant. The growth of the crop was observed to be less as compared with the crop having no fly-ash deposition. It is observed that the crop growth of the complainant has been affected with the fly-ash deposition and the same will eventually reduce the yield and grain/crop production.
X X X X X
(v) The Unit should pay the compensation to the affected land
owner, which may be assessed by the HSPCB in consultation with agriculture department."
103. In its reply the Respondent No.1 has submitted that neither the Joint Committee Report nor show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 issued by HSPCB on the basis thereof substantiate the contention regarding deposit of ash on the leaves of the crop grown by the applicant with documentation. Indeed, other than two (2) unverified photographs, there is no lab report, crop analysis or even sample collection indicated in the Report to support the findings that " the ash has been deposited on the leaf of the crop grown by the complainant. The growth of the crop was observed to be low as compared with the crop having no fly-ash deposition" and "the crop growth of the complainant has been affected with the fly-ash deposition and the Units boiler is close to the crop field and the ash deposition will 54 eventually reduce the yield and grain/crop production". The Respondent No.1 has further submitted that these findings completely ignore various other factors that may have an impact on crop growth.
104. However, the Respondent No.1 has not asserted that its boiler was not close to the land of the applicant and other similarly placed land owners. The applicant produced photographs showing deposit of ash on leaves of his crops. On visit to the affected land the Joint Committee verified the factual position and found the claim of the applicant to be genuine and recorded its observations and recommendations as mentioned above. No doubt, the samples taken at the time of visit of the Joint Committee and also subsequently by CPCB, IIT Delhi and HSPCB were found to meet the prescribed norms with respect to air pollution but the Respondent No. 1 has not maintained and produced log books to show proper removal/storage/disposal of boiler ash and the conveyor belt at the boiler was not covered with hood cover which does not rule out causing of air pollution and fugitive emissions with strong wind action and activities in the unit. The Respondent No. 1 has neither asserted nor produced any material to substantiate existence of any similar industry in close vicinity of the Unit and affected land as being the source of such dust pollution. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) are not applicable and the claim regarding loss caused by environmental damage and for award of compensation is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and by means of unimpeachable evidence admissible under and recorded by strict application of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). On preponderance of probabilities the claim of the applicant is substantiated/proved by the material placed on record by him 55 and report of the Joint Committee which has gone virtually unrebutted and deserves to relied upon.
105. It may also be observed here that the Respondent No.1 undertook in its reply to implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee which included the recommendation for payment of compensation to the applicant/owners of the affected land.
106. It may be added here that in the course of making his submissions learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 stated that appropriate compensation had been paid to the owners of affected land but the Respondent No.1 has not produced any material to substantiate this assertion.
107. With reference to the recommendation of the Joint Committee that the unit should pay the compensation to the affected land owner, which may be assessed by the HSPCB in consultation with agriculture department, HSPCB has submitted that the unit has intimated that it has taken the 9 (nine) acre land adjoining to the unit on lease related to the complainant and his family. However, to substantiate this assertion copy of the lease deed has not been produced. Further, taking of the land on lease for future use cannot be treated as compliance with regard to payment of compensation for past loss of agricultural crops due to environmental damage caused by the Respondent No.1.
108. Sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which empowers this Tribunal to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I thereof, reads as under:-
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution.--(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,--56
a. relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance); b. for restitution of property damaged; c. for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit."
109. It may be observed here that pursuant to inspections made on the complaint dated 15.12.2023 of the applicant Ramesh Kumar interim environmental compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- was imposed by HSPCB on the Respondent No.1 which has been deposited by the Respondent No.1 with HSPCB.
110. In view of the above referred facts and circumstances of the case, HSPCB is directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as interim compensation to the applicant and owners of the affected land adjoining the Unit as per their share of such land holding, out of the interim environmental compensation deposited with it and assess and disburse the final amount of compensation to them in consultation with agriculture department.
111. It may be observed here that in its status report HSPCB has not given any action plan for utilization of environmental compensation amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- deposited by the Respondent No. 1.
112. HSPCB is directed to prepare and implement action plan for utilization of environmental compensation amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- for protection and improvement of environment in the area.
113. In view of the above the original application is disposed of with the following directions:-
57
(i) Respondent No.1 is directed to take requisite remedial measures for compliance with the EC Conditions and recommendations made by the Joint Committee, VSI, Pune and CPCB and uploading of Annual Environmental Statement and Six monthly report on its website.
(ii) HSPCB is directed to look into all the aspects of compliance with the EC Conditions and recommendations made by the Joint Committee, VSI, Pune and CPCB and to issue appropriate directions for requisite compliance in time bound manner.
(iii) HSPCB is directed to accord urgent attention towards cleaning of the entire drain stretch (behind the Unit) and ensure stoppage of any industrial effluent/sewage discharge into the drain and periodically verify the factual position by carrying out water quality analysis and accordingly issue appropriate directions to the Respondent No. 1 and also the Irrigation Department in accordance with law for cleaning of the drain and removal and safe disposal of sludge. Further, HSPCB will ensure that no drain/discharge pipeline is let into the main drain.
(iv) HSPCB is directed to look into the aspect of safe and scientific disposal of boiler ash and conduct requisite audit regarding compliance by the Respondent No.1 with EC conditions for ensuring removal and disposal of boiler ash in scientific and environment friendly manner such as brick making, cement industry.
(v) HSPCB is directed to conduct periodical audit regarding compliance with Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, maintenance of logbooks and proper storage and disposal of hazardous and other wastes.
(vi) HSPCB is directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as interim compensation to the applicant and owners of the affected land adjoining the Unit as per their share of such land holding, out of the 58 interim environmental compensation deposited with it and assess and disburse the final amount of compensation to them in consultation with State Agriculture Department.
(vii) HSPCB is directed to prepare and implement action plan for utilization of remaining environmental compensation amount of Rs.
22,00,000/- for protection and improvement of environment in the vicinity of the area and on affected land.
(viii) HWRA is directed to look into the matter and dispose of the application dated 19.06.2022 for permission pending with it expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (if not already disposed of).
114. Requisite compliance with these directions be made within three months and Action Taken/Compliance Reports be filed within next one month by the Respondent No.1, Member Secretary, HSPCB and Member Secretary, HWRA.
115. A copy of this order be sent to the applicant by post for information and the Respondent No.1 and Member Secretary, HSPCB and Member Secretary, HWRA by email for requisite compliance.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM September 25th, 2024 Original Application No. 111/2024 (I.A. No. 468/2024) ag 59