Shanmugam vs The Member Secretary on 1 July, 2024

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Shanmugam vs The Member Secretary on 1 July, 2024

Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati

Item No.7:-

              BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                   SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

                               (Through Video Conference)


                    Original Application No. 70 of 2023 (SZ)


IN THE MATTER OF:


      K. Shanmugam,
      Kancheepuram.
                                                                ...Applicant(s)
                                           Versus

      The Member Secretary
      TNPCB, Chennai and Ors.
                                                               ...Respondent(s)


Date of hearing: 01.07.2024.


CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER



For Applicant(s):         Ms. Manju Priya represented
                          M/s. P. Balamurugan & D. Kowsalya.


For Respondent(s):        Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2.
                          Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3.
                          M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates for R5.
                          M/s. V. Aandhamurthy, S. Kousik &
                          S. Kuberan for R6.
                          M/s. S. Thirumagal for R7, R9 & R11.
                          Mr. Abhinay Sharma for R8.

                                      Page 1 of 3
                 Mr. K. Shankar Vignesh for R10.
                M/s. B. Deepaknarayanan, Nadhini &
                Aravinnth Sittharth for R12.
                M/s. Savitha Kesav Jagadeesan for R13.
                M/s. I. Jenkins William & K. Sampath for R14.
                Mr. Abishek Murthy for R15.



                            ORDER

1. The learned counsel Mr. Abishek Murthy undertakes to file vakalat and report on behalf of the 15th Respondent.

2. The report of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) is taken on file, which says that the report of the analysis of the lake water samples collected reveals that the parameters achieved the drinking water specification standards as prescribed by the Board.

3. They have also reported that no untreated/treated sewage or effluents were discharged from the said 11 units into the storm water drain. However, it is stated that 3 of the units, as mentioned in Para (7) of the report, do not operate their Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) properly. Whether any action has been taken by the TNPCB in this regard against the erring units is not mentioned. It is also silent about the levying of fines on erring units. Let the TNPCB file a report to that effect.

4. Admittedly, the 11 units are operating within the SIPCOT premises. From the report of the TNPCB, it can be seen that few of them have STPs and ETPs and few of the industries are having Page 2 of 3 only the septic tank and soak pit provided and they are in operation.

5. When the SIPCOT is responsible for developing industrial estate and allotting specific plots for various industries, it can be appropriate for the SIPCOT to have a Common STP and ETP even though the size of the industries may be small.

6. Let the above things be considered by the SIPCOT and also implement the same in the existing estates and in their future estates as well.

7. Let the applicant file his objections (if any) to the report of the TNPCB before the date of next hearing.

8. Post the matter on 02.08.2024.

Sd/-

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.70/2023(SZ) 01st July, 2024. Mn.

Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal