Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hindalco Industries Limited Renukoot ... vs Ashwani Kumar Dubey on 4 July, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
1
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 15-16/2020
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED
RENUKOOT PLANT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. The present appeals are directed against an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT)1. The impugned order was made upon an application alleging about existence of a large number of thermal power plants in District Singrauli (in Madhya Pradesh) and District Sonebhadra (in Uttar Pradesh), causing acute pollution resulting in destruction of environment. It was also alleged, inter alia, that the industries were discharging mercury beyond prescribed norms, affecting the nervous system and causing disorders to the local inhabitants. The applicant had relied upon the ‘Comprehensive Environmental Polluted Index Report’ and stated that fly ash stored by Signature Not Verified industries created high pollution.
Digitally signed byNIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.07.10 11:15:21 IST Reason:
2. The NGT by its order dated 25.8.2014, constituted a Core 1 ? Dated 28.08.2018 and 17.10.2019 in OA 164/2018 (Old O.A. No. 276 of 2013) 2 Committee and four Sub-Committees. The Core Committee was charged with monitoring hazards of industrial development in Singrauli. It consisted of 12 members including representatives of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) as well as the Director of Agricultural Research Institute and Director of Indian Institute of Toxicology Research. The Sub- Committee constituted for assessing impact of air quality comprised of the following:-
a. Representative of the Central Pollution Control Board, b. Representative of the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, c. Representative of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, d. An expert on air quality from National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur e. An expert on air quality from IIT, Kanpur.
3. The report of the Core Committee constituted by NGT submitted its report in February, 2018 vis-a-vis the present appellant, had observed and recommended, inter alia, as follows:-
“a) Industry shall achieve emission limit of 50 mg/Nm3 for particulate matter in respect of all Baking furnaces. The emission from boilers shall be reduced to the level of 50 mg/Nm3 from the existing norms of 150 mg/Nm3 by December 31, 2019 retrofitting of existing ESPs and also meet emission limit of O2 & NOx notified for industrial boilers.
b) Industry shall ensure that no red mud is leached out to 3 ground water during monsoon and post monsoon period.
Piezometers/monitoring wells should be installed in and around the red mud disposal sites in consultation with the CGWB/concerned SGWB. Regular monitoring of the leachate should be carried out as per the sampling and analysis plan as proposed by the concerned SPCB. Besides, industry shall facilitate utilization of Red Mud in nearby cement industries, including those located in MP. The industry shal also explore the possibility of extraction of titanium and other heavy metals from the Red Mud.
c) The Core Committee was informed that the industry has taken a zero waste discharge initiative though no such action plan could be obtained. This action plan must be made ready within a month’s time and submitted to UPPCB for necessary approval.”
4. The Committee had consulted representatives of industries including the present appellant before it prepared its report. After its report was circulated, the appellant represented to the Committee drawing to its notice that the relevant emission norms prescribed under the Environment Protection Act, Rule 3(iii) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 under Serial No. 70, for Boilers against “steam generation capacity of Boiiler 15 Ton/hrs. & above” is 150 mg/Nm3, whereas the recommendation was to lower the emission standards to 50 mg/Nm3.
5. The representation, to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows:-
“For our Aluminium Smelter, Renukoot Earlier Recommendation Point (ii) a) of final Recommendation Industry shall achieve emission Industry shall achieve emission limit of 50 limit of 50 mg/Nm3 for mg/Nm3 for particulate matter in respect particulate matter in respect of of all Baking furnaces. The emission from 4 Baking furnace No. 3 & 4. The boilers shall be reduced to the level of 50 emission from Baking Furnace mg/Nm3 from the existing 150 mg/Nm3 No.5 should also be limited to 50 by December 31, 2019 retrofitting of mg/Nm3. exiting ESPs and also meet emission limit of So2 & NOx notified for industrial boilers.
Our Comments In Renukoot, the four Boilers (80 TPH, 80 TPH, 140 TPH and 150 TPH) along with ESP were commissioned and have been in operation for about 20 years to meet the requirement of steam in our process i.e. Alumina Refinery and Carbon Plant.
Relevant emission norms prescribed under the Environment Protection Act, Rule 3(iii) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 under Serial No. 70, for Boilers against “steam generation capacity of Boiiler 15 Ton/hrs. & above” is 150 mg/Nm3, whereas the recommendation was to lower the emission standards to 50 mg/Nm3. The relevant page is attached for your kind reference as Annexure II.
We submit that control of SO2 and NOx emission of our stacks are designed as per CPCB formula of H = 14(Q)0.3. The stack height provided is well above the required height calculated using CPCB formula.
The recommendation by the Core Committee to reduce the particulate matter emission levels to 50 mg/Nm3 from the existing norms of 150 mg/Nm3 by December 31, 2019 through retrofitting of existing ESP is not in conformity with the emission limit of 150 mg/Nm3 for boilers with steam generation capacity of 15 Ton/Hrs. and and above specified under Serial No. 70 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986.
We seek your intervention for reconsideration of the above. We would also request for an opportunity to meet you and explain the details.
We remain available for any clarification/queries that might be required.
Thanking you in anticipation.”
6. Upon circulation of the report by the NGT, comments and objections were sought for. However, the appellant did not respond. In the circumstances, the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the NGT in its impugned order and the appellant was 5 directed to reduce the emission from its boilers from 150 mg/Nm3 to 50 mg/Nm3.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the recommendations accepted by the NGT are contrary to law as the applicable standard is not 50 mg/Nm3 but 150 mg/Nm3 and in the absence of alteration of the norms, by amendment to the Rules, the recommendations could not have been, ipso facto, accepted as standards imposed upon the appellant. It is also pointed out that neither the Committee nor the NGT has furnished any reason why the norm of 50 mg/Nm3 could apply only to the appellant and not others.
8. Notice was issued to the contesting respondents (original applicant), yet they have not appeared before the Court. Mr. Pradeep Mishra, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board submitted that undoubtedly standards reflected in the statutory regime by way of rules framed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 stipulate 150 mg/Nm3 as the norm. It was submitted that the NGT has accepted the Expert Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Mishra also conceded that the report does not state any reason why the 50 mg/Nm3 standard has been applied only to the appellant and none of the other industries in the area or other similar industries.
9. Rule 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and Serial No. 70 of Schedule I reads as follows:-
6
“3(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Central Board or a State Board may specify more stringent standards from those provided in Schedules I to IV in respect of any specific industry, operation or process depending upon the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons, therefor, in writing.” xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Serial No. 70 of Schedule I Sl. No. Industry Parameter Standards
70. Boilers (Small) Steam generation capacity Particulate Emission (ton/hour) matter (mg/Nm3) less than 2 1200* 2 to less than 10 800*
10 to less than 15 600* 15 and above 150** * to meet the respective standards, cyclone multicyclone is recommended as control equipment with the boiler. ** to meet the standard, bag filter/ESP is recommended as control equipment with the boiler.”
10. It is apparent that the appellant’s concern that a new standard other than what has been prescribed by the statute, has been mandated is borne out. Entry 70 of the First Schedule to the Rules stipulates that for boilers with the capacity of 15 ton per hour or more, the emission standard is 150 mg/Nm3. The NGT was persuaded to accept the suggestions of the Committee, which recommended a stringent standard i.e. 50 mg/Nm3. While this was not permissible without amendment of Rules, at the same time this Court is alive of the fact that the Committee constituted by the NGT comprised of distinguished technical experts who, in their wisdom, recommended that the standard for the appellant ought to be 50 mg/Nm3, though they did not furnish any reason why other units were not expected to 7 follow that standard.
11. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that rather than setting aside the impugned order entirely, it would be appropriate that the issue is remitted to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which should examine the feasibility of altering the standards applicable to industries like those of the appellant. This would, in our opinion, lend uniformity to the exercise and enable the CPCB to have wider consultations.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby modified. The issue with respect to the appropriate emission standards for boilers shall be re-examined by the CPCB having regard to all relevant factors after taking into consideration such views of technical and expert personnel as is necessary. The CPCB shall take up the exercise and complete it as early as possible, preferably within one year.
13. The appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid direction.
…..………………., J.
(S. Ravindra Bhat) ..………………., J.
(Aravind Kumar)
New Delhi
July 4, 2023
8
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 15-16/2020
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED RENUKOOT PLANT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 18613/2020 - AMENDMENT OF APPEAL / PETITION / I.A. IA No. 194291/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 94276/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 04-07-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashish Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Mukta Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Pruthvi Dhinoja, Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Sigh, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Vinayaka S Pandit, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR 9 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(DR. NAVEEN RAWAL) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)