National Green Tribunal
Public Action Committee And Others vs State Of Punjab Through Its Chief ... on 5 July, 2024
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.470/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. PUBLIC ACTION COMMITTEE
Having its Head Office at 561-L,
Model Town, Ludhiana,
Through its Member Er. Kapil Dev
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander,
R/o 186-E, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana, State of Punjab
2. ER. KAPIL DEV
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander,
R/o 186-E, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana
3. KULDEEP SINGH KHAIRA
S/o S. Ujjagar Singh Khaira,
R/o #125, Ishar Nagar,
Ludhiana
4. DR. AMANDEEP SINGH BAINS
S/o S. Resham Singh,
R/o #1120, Farmers Abode,
Basant Avenue, Ludhiana
5. JASKIRAT SINGH
S/o S. Makhan Singh
R/o 561-1, Model Town,
Ludhiana
6. DAVINDER PAL SINGH
S/o S. Rajinder Singh
R/o #249, Basant Avenue, Race Course Road,
Amritsar
...Applicant(s)
1
Versus
1. STATE OF PUNJAB
Through the Chief Secretary,
Punjab Civil Secretariat,
Sector-1, Chandigarh
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Green Avenue, Amritsar
3. THE ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY
Department of Environment,
Government of Punjab,
Punjab Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh.
4. SR. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ZONAL OFFICE
Punjab Pollution Control Board,
Plot No. 164, Focal Point,
Mehta Road, Amritsar
5. M/S. AMAR COLUR CHEM INDIA
Through its Director,
Mr. Rohit Handa,
26, Focal Point,
Amritsar-143001
6. THE CHAIRMAN,
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
PSEB Complex,
Patiala
...Respondent(s)
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr. Arjun Nanda, Advocates
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for R - 5 (Through VC)
Ms. Vasudha Priyansha, Advocate (Through VC) for Ms. Sunieta Ojha,
Advocate for Punjab State Pollution Control Board
2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
RESERVED ON: APRIL 16, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 05, 2024
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act 2010') by six applicants which includes an unregistered non-Government organisation of a few citizens of India titled as 'Public Action Committee' through its member Kapil Dev and five individuals namely Kapil Dev, Kuldeep Singh Khaira, Amandeep Singh Bains, Jaskirat Singh and Davinder Pal Singh, raising a grievance against M/s. Amar Colur Chem India, impleaded as respondent 5 in OA, stating that this industry is releasing toxic gases/fugitive fumes as well as discharging harmful effluents in the domestic sewer illegally and in an unscientific way causing serious health hazardous to the applicants, their family members, workers of the industry itself and public at large.
2. Brief facts pleaded by the applicants are that an OA 938/2019, Avtar Singh Uppal & Others vs. State of Punjab was heard by Tribunal on the issue of pollution being caused by several dyeing units on the Airport Road at Amritsar, State of Punjab. In its order dated 31.10.2019 after noticing the grievance of the applicants that pollution is being caused by dyeing units on Airport Road at Amritsar and other factories such as M/s Khanna Paper Mills Ltd etc. on Majitha Road and Verka vicinity 3 alongside Tung Dhab Drain at Amritsar in violation of environmental norms and Effluent Treatment Plants (hereinafter referred to as 'ETP')/ Sewage Treatment Plants (hereinafter referred to as 'STP') are not working and causing pollution, Tribunal directed Punjab State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PSPCB') to look into the matter, take appropriate action in accordance with law and furnish a factual and action taken Report to the Tribunal within two months.
3. Pursuant to the above order dated 31.10.2019 passed in OA 938/2019 (supra), Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Regional Office, Amritsar submitted factual and action taken Report dated 17.03.2020 (date of Report is wrongly mentioned as 17.02.2020 in para 4 of present OA). The said Report stated that in Amritsar city, total waste water discharge is 267 MLD whereof 232.5 MLD is domestic discharge and 35 MLD is industrial discharge. Tung Dhab Drain enters Amritsar city at village Pandori Lubana and after traversing 10 kms distance with Municipal Corporation limits, it joins Hudiara drain, which ultimately enters into the territory of Pakistan. Drain carries waste water discharge of Municipal Corporation Amritsar, treated effluent of industries and untreated effluent of dairies located in clusters along the right bank of Tung Dhab Drain. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar has installed three STPs with a total installed capacity of 217.5 MLD by dividing catchment area of Amritsar city into three zones i.e., South Zone, North Zone and South East Zone. Waste water from catchment area of South Zone is treated in STP installed at Village Khaperkheri and its installed capacity is 95 MLD. Treated effluent from this STP is discharged into the city outfall drain, which lead to Hudiara Drain. In respect of North Zone catchment area, waste water generated thereat is treated in STP located at village 4 Gaunsabad, Ram Tirth Road, Amritsar with installed capacity of 95 MLD. The treated effluent from this STP is discharged into Tung Dhab Drain. The third STP is with the capacity of 27.5 MLD installed at village Chattiwind and it treats waste water generated in South East Zone. This STP is under stabilization and treated effluent is discharged into Chabhal Drain. 15 MLD waste water, generated at Hukum Singh Road and Batala Road, is discharged into Tung Dhab Drain, which would be collected at STP of North Zone. There were 85 dairies located in 04 clusters along Tung Dhab Drain which discharge untreated liquid waste as well as solid waste into Tung Dhab Drain. The sample of waste water collected on 10.05.2018 at point source of the above dairies shows analytical results which highly exceeds the prescribed parameters with BOD and COD concentration of 4525 and 6880 mg/l; concentration of TDS and TKN was found as 3568 and 358 mg/l; pH was 8.88 and T-Phosphate found was 8 mg/l; concentration of Total Coliform and Faecal Coliform was also very high i.e., 1.1 x 106 and 7 x 105 MPN/100 ml.; there were 59 water polluting industries with discharge of 35 MLD whereagainst 25.5 MLD of treated effluent is discharged into Tung Dhab drain and 9.5 MLD is discharged on the land used for irrigation or is discharged into Municipal Corporation sewer/ Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'PSIEC') sewer. Out of 59 water polluting industries, 47 are Textile Dyeing/Printing industries, 01 is a paper mill, 03 are Semi Craft Paper Manufacturing industries, 03 Milk Processing Industries and 05 are miscellaneous industries like i.e., Surgical Cotton manufacturing industries etc. All the water polluting industries have installed their individual ETPs for treatment of trade effluent. Dyeing industries have upgraded their existing ETPs and adopted waste water minimization 5 practices under technical guidance of Dr. A.S. Reddy of Thapar University, Patiala and other consultants. Apart from 59 operational water polluting industries as said above, there were 04 table printing industries, which were closed down by PSPCB under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act 1974') since these industries had failed to install ETPs. Report further said that PSPCB conducted surprise inspection of 34 water polluting industries during December 2019 to February 2020. The samples collected show that 25 industries were in compliance of prescribed parameters, 08 were found beyond the prescribed parameters and result of 01 was awaited. PSPCB issued notice under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 to eight violating industries and also decided to impose environmental compensation on seven industries where concentration of pollutants in treated effluent was found beyond permissible limits. An advisory was issued to the industries where treated sample was found beyond limits slightly. PSPCB had also taken initiative for dyeing industries located in New Focal Point cluster, Amritsar and a Special Purpose Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'SPV') under the name and style of M/s. Amritsar Textile Effluent Treatment Pvt. Ltd. was formed for installation of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'CETP') for treatment of effluent of dyeing industries. PSIEC had reserved a plot in New Focal Point for installation of CETP and had also approved laying of dedicated sewer line for all dyeing industries upto CETP area. The water quality of Tung Dhab Drain was also sought to be tested by collecting samples on 11.01.2020 at 08 locations through three designated laboratories and the test results shows high level pollution. The parameters beyond permissible limit in respect of BOD were on account of the following three reasons namely; 6
(i) The discharge of untreated waste water by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar.
(ii) The discharge of untreated liquid and solid waste by 85 number of dairies.
(iii) The indiscriminate disposal of Municipal Solid Waste into Tung Dhab Drain by nearby residents within the area of Municipal Corporation limits.
4. PSPCB had issued directions to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar for closing the outlets wherefrom waste water is being discharged directly or indirectly into Tung Dhab Drain. A further direction had been issued to take care of untreated liquid and solid waste being discharged directly or indirectly into Tung Dhab Drain by the dairies.
Tribunal's order dated 26.06.2020:
5. The Report was examined by Tribunal on 26.06.2020 in OA 938/2019 (supra) and after noticing that there is acknowledgment of water pollution on the part of PSPCB, it was incumbent upon it to take remedial action which may be overseen by Monitoring Committee headed by Justice Jasbir Singh, Former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.10.2019, passed in OA 138/2016 (TNHRC), Stench Grips Mansa's Sacred Ghaggar River to oversee abatement measures for pollution of Satluj River and compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
6. Consequently, further Action Taken Report dated 01.01.2021 was filed by Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Regional Office, Amritsar in OA 938/2019 (supra). The Report said that after giving opportunity to Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Competent Authority of PSPCB directed 7 it to transfer Rs. 39.31 lakhs to Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PWSSB') within 10 days. PWSSB, after receiving the said amount, shall complete work of connecting Batala Road disposal with Municipal Corporation MC sewer before 31.03.2021 and shall plug Majitha Road disposal within 10 days after cleaning the sewer within 15 days. PSPCB, however, when visited the site on 20.11.2020 found that Municipal Corporation, Amritsar as well as PWSSB had failed to comply with the directions given by PSPCB on 22.10.2020. Consequently, notices were issued to explain the said authorities as to why directions of PSPCB have not been complied with.
7. Report also states that the pollution is also being caused by the dairy units. For the purpose of the present case, we are omitting that part of the Report.
8. With regard to installation of CETP, Report says that its installation was delayed since PSIEC had not handed over the reserved plot to SPV. Consequently, for non-seriousness of PSIEC, notice under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 was issued by PSPCB to Executive Engineer, PSIEC to explain its conduct.
9. Report also says that surprise inspection of 40 water polluting industries was conducted between December 2019 to October 2020 and action taken in respect of respondent 5, as stated in para 9 (i) of the said Report dated 01.01.2021, reads as under:
"(i) One number of industry namely M/s Amar Color Chem (India), Plot No. 26, Focal Point, Amritsar against whom regular complaints were being received was found violating the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Accordingly, directions were issued for closure of the 8 unit."
10. In the present case, applicants have stated that in respect of respondent 5, a survey team was constituted by Chairman, PSPCB comprising;
(i) Shivraj Singh Bal, SDM-2, Amritsar,
(ii) Sh. Balwinder Pal Singh Walia, G.M.DIC, Mehta Road,
Amritsar,
(iii) Dr. J.N. Chakraborty, Professor, Department of Textile
Technology, NIT, PO, REC, Jalandhar,
(iv) Dr. Sachin Kumar, Professor, Department of Chemistry,
GNDU, Amritsar, and
(v) Sh. Harpal Singh, Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Regional
office, Amritsar.
11. The said team visited the industrial site of respondent 5 on 29.09.2020 (at page 29 of the paper book) and found following violations:
"1. The factory was not working in full strength and even a single reactor was not functioning.
2. No fumes and smoke were noticed due to non-functioning of boiler and reactors.
3. No safety and health measures were taken for workers. Worker engaged in packing of dye were also colored in yellow color which is not good for health.
4. Whole factory was spilled with yellow colored dye.
5. Some of the chemicals used during manufacturing have ill-effect on human health, such as genotoxic, teratogenic and carcinogenic in nature.
6. Mill owner was not cooperative; he was not giving us the record of procured materials and sold materials, i.e. raw material used and final product, rather telling to go registered office to collect 9 those records.
7. Mill owner informed us about zero discharge but actually discharging some polluted liquor.
8. Despite prior Information about the visit, the industry was not functioning fully not allowing the team to evaluate to the maximum extent."
12. Pursuant to the above Report, Senior Environmental Engineer issued a letter dated 27.11.2020 with a direction under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act 1981'), directing Chief Engineer and Superintendent Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PSPCL'), Amritsar to disconnect electric connection of respondent 5 with immediate effect and not to restore the same without prior permission of PSPCB.
13. Applicants have further said that a complaint was made by M/s. T.K. Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. to PSPCB and Environment Secretary on 26.02.2021 regarding seepage of coloured polluted effluent from boundary walls of industrial unit of respondent 5.
Tribunal's order dated 05.03.2021:
14. This Report dated 01.01.2021 in OA 938/2019 (supra) was considered by Tribunal on 05.03.2021 and OA was disposed of with the directions that PSPCB shall ensure further action for compliance of environmental norms following due process of law. It shall also ensure that drain receiving effluents is duly maintained by preventing discharge of untreated effluent and sewage.
15. Another complaint dated 25.03.2021 was sent by M/s. T.K. Rubber 10 Industries Pvt. Ltd. to Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CPCB').
16. Applicant-2 sent a notice dated 02.04.2021, complaining about polluting activities of respondent 5 to the respondents.
17. On 09.04.2021, however, electric connection of respondent 5 was restored.
18. Against the polluting activities of respondent 5, some neighboring residents made complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19.04.2021 and M/s. T.K. Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. sent complaint to Chief Minister, State of Punjab, Secretary Environment, State of Punjab and Chairman, PSPCB by e-mail dated 07.05.2021. Consequently, Environmental Officer, Regional Office, Amritsar issued an order dated 10.05.2021, containing directions under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and Section 31A of Air Act 1981, requiring Sub-Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Mall Mandi, Amritsar to disconnect electric connection of respondent 5 with immediate effect and not to restore without prior permission of PSPCB. However, production activities in the unit of respondent 5 continued in respect whereof, a complaint was made by e-mail dated 16.05.2021. Another e-mail dated 18.05.2021 sent by applicant - 6 to Secretary Environment, State of Punjab. PSPCB issued show cause notice dated 03.08.2021 to respondent 5 but after hearing representative of the industry, issued order dated 17.08.2021 for restoration of electric connection.
19. Further complaints were made to various authorities on 24.08.2021, 03.09.2021, 15.09.2021 and 30.11.2021. A team of Environmental Authorities visited the industrial unit on 13.10.2021 and found that ETP 11 was non-functional and some chemical i.e., Toluidine was found in the unit which was banned by Government of India; irritating fumes were noticed especially in front of yellow dye manufacturing section; whole factory was spilled with green and yellow coloured dyes; whole unit was zero discharge but discharge of some polluted liquor was found during the visit.
20. Subsequently also industry was visited by PSPCB officials and finding violations, directions for disconnection of electric connection to PSPCL were issued but the said connection was restored thereafter vide letter dated 04.04.2022.
21. It appears that respondent 5 had more than one electric connection while officials of PSPCL disconnected only one connection and thereby enabled respondent 5 to continue operation of the industrial unit in violation of PSPCB.
22. There was a fire incident on 31.08.2022, resulting in release of toxic fumes, pursuant whereto, closure order was issued on 28.10.2022 but in Appeal, respondent 3 allowed the unit's operations by 21.11.2022.
23. Alleging that consistently and repeatedly, respondent 5 has been violating environmental laws and norms, applicants have prayed for permanent closure of respondent 5 industry by order of this Tribunal, besides imposing penalty of Rs.100 Crores as environmental compensation for causing damage to environment and health hazards to the public at large and criminal action should also be taken under the provisions of Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and NGT Act 2010.12
Tribunal's order dated 10.08.2023:
24. OA was considered by Tribunal on 10.08.2023 and after being satisfied that a substantial question relating to environment has been raised, notices were issued to respondents 2, 4 and 5 with the opportunity to submit their responses. Tribunal also constituted a Joint Committee comprising one representative from PSPCB, one representative from CPCB and one representative from Collector/District Magistrate, Amritsar with a further direction to submit a factual and action taken Report on the extent of violations and reasons for not taking action under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 within four weeks.
Joint Committee Report dated 21.11.2023 filed on 22.11.2023:
25. Joint Committee, pursuant to the above order dated 10.08.2023, has submitted its Report dated 21.11.2023 filed in Tribunal on 22.11.2023 through Shri Sukhdev Singh, Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Regional Office, Amritsar. The site of industrial unit was visited by Joint Committee on 20.10.2023 and salient observations and suggestions mentioned in the Report are as under:
"Salient Observations:
1. The unit is involved in batch wise standardization operation of dyes for further processors application needs. However, the unit reportedly manufacturing of basic Dyes Oil Yellow @100 kg/day, Oil Green @ 100 kg/day using glycerine, benzaldehdye and dyes methyl aniline and other chemicals such as Ortho toluidine, Mono cholorobenezane & acids as raw material.
2. The unit meets its water requirement through one Bore well for industrial and domestic purpose. Mechanical type water meter installed at bore well and log book of the same was not maintained.
3. The unit has not obtained permission from Central 13 Ground Water Authority (CGWA)/ PWRDA for ground water abstraction.
4. The unit has provided separate two reactor vessels for Processing of the oil yellow & Oil Green dyes standardization.
5. Committee observed that Work Zone Area of green dye stuff has not provided adequate ventilation arrangement as well as fugitive emission control system.
6. On the day of visit, the unit was found operational. However, Other treatment units of the ETP were found empty and dried which indicated that the flowing of stream from process is not produced since long times although only Aeration tanks of ETP were found operational for maintaining the biomass.
7. As informed by the unit representatives, no effluent is generated from this process although, a small quantity effluent generated infrequently in floor washing of the work area, cleaning and washing of reactor vessel and its floor, that effluent is enrouted to existing ETP for treatment. However, logbook of the same was not maintaining.
8. Committee observed the unit is not adopting closed loop system for feeding of the raw material into the reaction vessel along with carry out the semi-finished product through open channel.
9. The unit has installed an ETP which is based on physico-
chemical followed by Biological process. The ETP comprises of Bar Screen > Oil & Grease Chamber > Equalization Tank > Chemical Dozing > Flocculation Tank > Primary Tube Settler > MBBR-1 > MBBR-2 > Secondary Tube Settler > Pre-filtrations tank > Pressure Sand filter > Dual Media filter > Activated Carbon Filter � Final Outlet.
10. On the day of visit, there was no discharge of the effluent from the ETP.
11. At the time of visit of the team the ETP was not in operation only aeration in MBBR-1 and MBBR-2 (Aeration Tank-I, Aeration Tank-II 2) were operational. Effluent samples were collected from MBBR-1 and MBBR-2 (Aeration Tank-I & Aeration Tank-II). Sample were sealed in the presence of Sh. Rohit Handa, Partner and sample were sent to the Board's Lab at Head Office, Patiala for analysis MLSS and MLVSS.14
12. On the day of visit, committee observed that all treatment units of ETP were found empty and dry except aeration tank of ETP. On the day of visit, committee had taken samples from Aeration tank (MBBR Tank-1 & MBBR Tank-II) of ETP to assess stabilized of the bio-mass.
Sampling Location MLSS MLVSS
Aeration Tank-I 2280 1710
Aeration Tank-II 960 680
13. The unit has installed OCEMS at final outlet of ETP for measuring consented meter pH, TSS, COD, BOD, flow meter. On the day of visit, the OCEMS were not showing on line value due to not generation of the effluent.
14. The unit has not maintained any records of the quantity of effluent generation, treated effluent discharged and quantity of ETP sludge generated.
15. Committee observed that the unit kept various hazardous chemical in their premise namely Acetic acid, Sulphuric acid, Oxalic acid without valid registration/permission for trading these chemicals at the adjacent textile units.
16. The unit has installed 02 no. reaction vessels from manufacturing of Oil Yellow at second floor of its production area. The reaction vessels are attached with wet alkaline scrubber provided as APCD at second floor for scrubbing gases being generated from the process during reactions. Wet scrubber installed by the unit was in operation at the time of visit.
17. The unit has also installed storage vessels at the second floor of production area for the purpose of storage of raw material as well as intermediate products. All storage vessels are also connected with wet alkaline scrubber provided at Second floor.
18. The unit has installed storage vessels at first floor of the production area. All storage vessels are connected with wet alkaline scrubber provided at second floor.
19. The unit has installed 01 Grinder at ground floor for grinding of intermediate product. The unit has also installed 01 Centrifuge machine for extraction of crystalline material from its process.15
As informed by the unit representative, Liquid (mother liquor) being generated from the centrifuge process is being reuse in the process.
20. The unit has installed one filter press and same was found in non-operational condition.
21. The unit has not put up proper display board at the entrance gate as per the Hon'ble supreme court order in WP 657/1995.
22. It was observed that workers are not using personal protective equipments (PPEs) for their Health & Safety i.e. Gum Boot, Mask Safety belt etc.
23. The unit has not installed adequate firefighting arrangements in their plant premise i.e. Hose Reel system, Fire Hydrant system, Sand buckets, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Electrical/manual siren for emergency/ accident situation.
24. The unit had been kept used drums and barrels as well as various raw chemical of MS drums/plastic containers in open area of the unit premise.
25. The unit possesses consolidated consents valid upto 31.12.2023 under the Water Act-1974 and the Air Act-1981 whereas Authorization has not obtained under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management, & Trans boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 from PPCB.
26. Committee observed that the unit has not provided separate system for discharge of the storm water.
27. The unit has not taken public liability insurance policy.
28. The unit has not prepared on-site /off-site emergency plan of the plant area.
29. Over all housekeeping of the plant process area was found poor.
Suggestions:
1. The committee suggests that local administration /PPCB should keep stringent surveillance to discharge of the effluent in addition to releasing toxic gases and fugitive fumes in ambient 16 air as well as discharging harmful effluents in the domestic sewer illegally.
2. The unit should obtain permission from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)/ PWRDA for ground water abstraction.
3. The unit should install electromagnetic flow meter in place of.
Mechanical type water meter at tube well and log book of the same was maintained.
4. Emergency preparedness plan based on the hazard identification and risk assessment and disaster management plan should be implemented in the unit.
5. The unit should obtain valid registration/NOC permission from concerned SPCB for trading of hazardous chemical in their premise namely Acetic acid, sulphuric acid, oxalic acid etc.
6. The unit should obtain authorization under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management, & Trans boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 from PPCB for disposal of Used drums/containers, ETP sludge, process residue and expired chemicals.
7. The unit should be taken public liability insurance policy.
8. The unit should prepare on site /off site emergency plan of the plant area.
9. Over all housekeeping of the plant process area should be improved.
10. Leakage and spillage in the process needs to be improved.
11. The unit should install adequate firefighting arrangements in their plant i.e. Hose Reel system, Fire Hydrant system, Sand buckets, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Electrical/manual siren for emergency/ accident situation.
12. The unit should carry out regularly occupational health checkup of engaged workers and records of the same was maintained.
13. The unit should maintain proper ventilation system in the work Zone by providing proper exhaust along with filter and duct in the process area of green dye stuff.
14. The unit should put up proper display board at the entrance gate as per the Hon'ble supreme court order in WP 657/1995."17
Reply dated 28.11.2023 filed on behalf of PSPCB (respondent 4):
26. It is stated that M/s. Amar Colur Chem India i.e., respondent 5 is a small scale 'Red Category' industrial unit, located in approved industrial zone at Plot no. 26, Focal Point, Mehta Road, Amritsar and is functioning since 1997. It deals with manufacture of basic dyes, glycerine, benzaldehyde and dyes methyl aniline using oil green, oil yellow and other chemicals like ortho toluidine, mono chlorobenzene and acids as raw materials. Consents to Operate (hereinafter referred to as 'CTOs') were granted to respondent 5 under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 by PSPCB and the same were valid upto 30.06.2020 with certain terms and conditions. These CTOs were further renewed on temporary basis. In 2020, PSPCB received complaint against respondent 5 regarding emission of fumes and untreated effluent discharge. Industrial unit was visited on 29.09.2020 by a team comprising Shri Shivraj Singh Bal, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM)-2 Amritsar; Sh. Balwinder Pal Singh Walia, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amritsar; Dr. J.N. Chakroborty, Professor of Department of Textile Technology, NIT, Jalandhar; Dr. Sachin Kumar, Professor of Department of Chemistry, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Shri Harpal Singh, Environmental Engineer, Amritsar. The said Committee found several violations of environmental norms and recorded its observations in the inspection Report dated 29.09.2020 (annexure R-4/A) at page 117 of paper book) as under:
"During visit the said team observed the following:
1. The factory was not working in full strength and even a single reactor was not functioning.
2. No fumes and smoke was noticed due to non functioning of boiler and reactors.18
3. No safety and health measures were taken for workers. Worker engaged in packing of dye were also colored in yellow color which is not good for health.
4. Whole factory was spilled with yellow colored dye.
5. Some of the chemicals used during manufacturing have ill-effect on human health, such as genotoxic, teratogenic and carcinogenic in nature.
6. Mill owner was not cooperative; he was not giving us the record of procured materials and sold materials, i.e raw material used and final product, rather telling to go to registered office to collect those records.
7. Mill owner informed us about zero discharge but actually discharging some polluted liquor.
8. Despite prior information about the visit, the industry was not functioning fully not allowing the team to evaluate to the maximum extent."
27. Noticing the above violations, PSPCB issued directions under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 read with Section 31A of Air Act 1981 vide notice dated 27.11.2020 and the directions issued to respondent 5 read as under:
"Now, therefore, Punjab Pollution Control Board, in exercise of the power conferred upon the Board u/s 33-A of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 & u/s 31-A of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 having been fully satisfied that it is a fit case to issue directions and here by, direct as follows:-
1. That the industry will stop operating an Industrial Plant & stop forthwith discharging any emissions/effluent from its industrial premises into atmosphere.
2. That industry shall not restart any process/plant unless all necessary air pollution control measures are taken and concentration of various pollutants conforms to the emissions/effluent standards laid down by the Board.
3. That the industry shall not restart discharging air pollutants until it obtains the consent of the Board to operate an Industrial 19 Plant refused u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended in 1987 u/s 25/2 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974.
4. That Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. will disconnect the supply of electricity available to industry.
In case of the failure to comply with the above directions, you are liable for action u/s 41 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 & as amended in 1988 and u/s 37(1) of the Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Act 1981 as amended in 1987."
28. Another letter was issued by Senior Environmental Engineer on behalf of Chief Environmental Engineer of PSPCB on 27.11.2020, requesting PSPCL, Amritsar to disconnect electric connection of industrial unit of respondent 5 and not to restore the same without prior permission of PSPCB.
29. After disconnection, respondent 5 submitted a proposal and furnished undertaking stating as under:
"
The Industry has installed adequate effluent treatment plant comprising of all chemical dosing systems and filtration system.
The Industry has also proposed to convert wood fired baby boiler to CNG fired baby boiler.
The Industry has provided suction hood with scrubbing systems through which the emissions are sucked and passed through water tanks in which caustic soda is mixed to absorb the gases.
We use basic dyes and we don't manufacture any AZO dyes. Further, we don't agree with the observations of the high level team who visited our factory in September this year because we don't use any dyes which cause ill effect to the human being. We assure the department that while processing these dyes there will be no harm to any of the workers/staff because of manufacturing of our product."
20
30. On the above representation, CTOs granted to respondent 5 till 28.02.2021 and a direction was also issued to PSPCL to temporarily restore electric connection of the industry upto 28.02.2021 vide PSPCB letter dated 31.12.2020. The following directions were issued to the industry by PSPCB vide letter dated 31.12.2020:
"1. The industry shall neither discharge any untreated trade effluent into M.C. Sewer nor shall emit any untreated air emissions in the ambient air.
2. The Industry shall get its proposals of control of water & air pollution audited from Deptt. of Environment & Bio-Technology, GNDU, Amritsar within 15 days. The industry shall also submit the material balance statement as per manufacturing process involved duly verified from GNDU and shall also submit a certification from GNDU for using of eco-friendly raw materials and manufacturing of eco friendly dyes within 15 days i.e. upto 15/01/2021.
3. Based on the report of GNDU, if up-gradation is required in the pollution control system, the industry shall do the same by 31/01/2021 and report to the Board by 31/01/2021.
4. The industry shall stop using wood and any other fuel and start using PNG as per the MOU signed with the GSPL by 31/01/2021."
31. PSPCB constituted a Committee comprising Sh. Harbir Singh, Senior Environmental Engineer, Sh. Manohar Lal Chohan, Environmental Engineer, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, AEE, Sh. Sandeep Gupta, ASO, Zonal Lab Jalandhar and Sh. Harpal Singh, Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Amritsar to check the commitments made by respondent 5 industry during its request for release of electric connection. The above team visited the industry on 10.02.2021 and submitted its report dated 10.03.2021. The observations and recommendations made by the above team in its Report dated 10.03.2021 are as under:
"The industry is dye & dye Intermediate manufacturing industry and 21 is covered under the 17 categories of industries as notified by CPCB & MOEF, Govt. of India. The industry is engaged in manufacturing of mainly two types of dyes namely Auramine Yellow and Melachite Green and on day of visit the manufacturing of Auramine yellow dye process was in operation & the manufacturing of melachite green was not in operation. Following are the manufacturing process enclosed in manufactures of dyes.
a) Manufacturing process for Auramine yellow dye: -
R.M → Condensation → Filtration → Isolations & Condensation → Dumping → Filtration → Isolation → Filtration in filter press & centrifuge → Wet cake crusher → Spin flash dryer → Ready product.
b) Manufacturing process for Melachite Green dye is as below:
R.M. Mixing & Reactions of Chemicals in Reactors → Addition of Water + Sodium Sulphuric in Reactors → Addition of Oxadic Acid & Helium & H2SO4 → Crystallizers → Centrifuge → Dryer → Ready Product.
c) Major Observations during the visit to the industry are as below (copy of visit report as Annexure B):-
(1) The raw material drums of 200 ltr. capacity were found stored in large number in the passage of industry and during the raw material handling various spillages were observed and lot of yellow coloured effluent was found being discharged untreated into the M.C. sewer exactly outside the entrance gate, the effluent samples was collected and another sample of effluent was collected from the drain leading to the M.C. sewer Inside the gate near the passage of the industry and were send to Punjab Biotechnology Incubator (PBTI) Lab, Mohall for analysis.
(2) The industry is engaged in multi stage batch operation process which emits lot of process emission from chemical reactions in the rector as almost all the reactors are open from top.
(3) The coloured waste water is discharged from various manufacturing process and the industry has provided 02-no.
underground storage tanks for the collection of effluent arising from the manufacturing of both products followed by 02 no. Reaction cum settling tank further leading to another settling tank, storage sump, and filters which as per the industry it is treatment plant for effluent but the physical condition of ETP shows that it is not in operational condition so no effluent sample of any treated effluent was collected.
22 (4) The Industry has installed 01-no. Baby boiler having stack height below roof level. The Industry is also having 01-no. pet coke fired thermopac of capacity 600 U with only cyclone as APCD further attached with stack but no sampling arrangement was provided. The industry has not provided 2 stage lime scrubber as required to be installed as APCD, where Pet Coke is used as fuel. (5) The industry has made agreement with GSPL for supply of PNG for conversion of fuel i.e. Pet coke to PNG, but the same has not be put in use by the industry.
(6) The industry has provided scrubber and cyclone followed by bag filter to contain emissions arising from Auromine dye manufacturing section but the stack height provided was neither adequate nor any sample arrangements has been provided.
(7) It was also observed that the industry has installed some of the plant & machinery along the common boundary wall of the complainants factory and some new plant & machinery is also under installation alongwith the industries & Industrial shed, which clearly indicates that the industry is doing expansion of the plant without obtaining NOC/ Consent to Establish (NOC)/ consent to operate of the Punjab Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also without the approval from Director of Factories under The Factories Act, 1948.
(8) The industry could not show the compliance of various provisions of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 with regard to storage & disposal of hazardous waste generated from various manufacturing process, empty containers of raw material & ETP sludge etc. (9) The house keeping in whole of the industry was in very poor shape.
D) The analysis of effluent & Ambient Air is sample collected by the team as under:-
(1) The 2 no. effluent samples collected during the visit and as per the analysis done by Punjab Biotechnology Incubator (PBTI) Lab, Mohali following are the results. (Copy enclosed as per Annexure).23
Sr. Parameters Results-I Results-II No. (mg/ltr) (mg/ltr) 1 pH 10.55 10.42 2 Total Suspended Solids 65.2 260 (TSS) 3 Ammonical Nitrogen 58.2 59.4 4 Oil & Grease 5.2 5.5 5 Chromium - Hexavalent BDL (MDL 0.05) BDL (MDL 0.05) (as Cr+6) 6 Nickel (as Ni) BDL (MDL 0.01) BDL (MDL 0.01) 7 Zinc (as Zn) 0.06 0.05 8 Copper (as Cu) 0.04 0.05 9 Lead (as Pb) 0.18 0.66 10 Chromium (as Cr) BDL (MDL 0.01) BDL (MDL 0.01) 11 Color 191 200 12 Biochemical Oxygen 299 259 Demand (BOD3 at 270C) 13 Chemical Oxygen 460 536 Demand (COD) 14 Cadium (as Cd) BDL (MDL 0.01) BDL (MDL 0.01) 15 Sulphide BDL (MDL 2) BDL (MDL 2) 16 Phenolic Compounds 0.56 0.61 (as C6H5OH) 17 Manganese (as Mn) 0.02 0.05 18 Total Dissolved Solids 11197 10401 (TDS) 19 Chloride (as CI) 3699 3299 20 Sulphate (as SO4) 1900 1800 21 Bio Assay 0% survival in 0% survival in 100% effluent 100% effluent after 96 hr of after 96 hr of test. test.
The analysis report reveals that various parameters such a BOD, COD, Bio-assay, Sulphate, TDS, Chloride, pH, heavy metals are beyond the limits as prescribed by the Board for such discharges.
(2) The sample of ambient air quality monitoring was collected from the roof of the premises of the complainant and the analysis of various pollutants are as below.
Sr.No. Parameters Results 1. RSPM (ug/Nm³) 190 2. NOx (ug/Nm³) 37 24 3. SO₂(ug/Nm³) 15 (E) General information regarding sources of pollution from a dye manufacturing Industries:-
(1) Waste water, solid waste & gaseous emissions are the major causes of pollution generated in Multistage batch & operation process having poor process control & unit operation/ processes, The pollution load generated per ton of product is very high, it has been reported that for manufacturing of 1 ton of product approx 5.5 tons of waste is generated and the release of untreated waste water poses a threat to the environment & the most serious problem are discharge of coloured effluent, which in turn decrease the D.O. of the water body. The removal of dyes from the waste water is one of the major environmental challenges, the majority of the dyes are difficult to remove by biological methods of the treatment. The major sources of the waste water generation are;
Mother liquor of filtrate stream from filtration operation. The waste water streams from the washing of filter cake to remove either salt impurities or residual filtrate. Leakage & spillages.
Floor washing of the work area.
The effluent discharged from the dye manufacturing section is highly acidic and contains toxic compounds, many of them are carcinogenic and highly hazardous to human health and the environment. This is due to the presence of benzene, naphthalene and other nitro-aromatic based compounds in the waste water, which are used as raw materials during the production of dye Intermediates. Due to the excess use of acid and alkali quantity, the waste water contains high concentration of Inorganic salts that results in the high consternation of TDS due to this, treatment of effluent is very difficult and highly expensive.
(2) The typical characteristics of the waste water from a dye manufacture Industry are as below:
25
Parameters Value
Colour Varying deep colours
pH 4-6
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 50,000-1,00,000 mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 15,000-2,00,000 mg/L
Ratio of Biochemcial Oxygen <0.2
Demand (BOD to COD)
Sulphates 61,000 to 73,000 mg/L
Sodium 40,000 to 47,000 mg/L
Chlorides 16,000 to 20,000 mg/L
(3) The major gaseous emissions from the dyes and dye intermediate industry are unrecovered gases generated from the process is vented out through the stack. Emissions generally observed as fugitive emissions may contain gases like chlorine, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitrogen oxides and fumes of acid and organic solvents. They pose a serious pollution threat. The other source of air pollution from this sector is the particulate matter emission from the drying and grinding operations. Flue gas from boilers is also a source of air pollution. Emission standards exist for most types of gases.
(4) Large quantities of solid wastes are generated from the dyes Industry. In fact, solid waste items generated in the process of the production and industrial use of synthetic dyes, dye intermediates and pigments account for huge volume of hazardous waste. The types of wastes from the process include sludge, iron sludge, residues from the filter press, tarry waste, waste dye powder and packaging material. These solid wastes contain toxic chemical compounds which has to be stored in environmentally sound manner and has to be disposed of to Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities for hazardous waste. All types of waste generated from the dyes and dye intermediate sector comes under the category of hazardous waste, as per the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1989. (F) Recommendations:-
(1) The Industry to immediately stop discharges untreated coloured effluent Into MC Sewer.
(2) The industry to certify whether the industry is manufacturing a banned dye or non banned dye, the industry to get the certificate of the product it is engaged in manufacturing from the technical Institutes of Good repute.26
(3) The manufacturing of process is done in multistage batch process rather than continuous process, so it was observed that raw material is lost as waste and which tend to contribute greatly to pollution generation. So the industry should submit Action Plan to shift onto continuous process & operation of manufacturing.
(4) The industry needs to get the ETP designed from an technical institute of good repute for the treatment of waste water generated from the Dye & Dyes intermediate manufacturing industries & accordingly to install a new adequately designed ETP.
(5) The Industry for the control air emission being emitted from of various sources and from the process reactors, should install adequately designed APCD's on all these source and provide adequate stack height and sampling arrangements.
(6) The industry needs to identify all the source of solid waste being generated from the various process, as they are covered under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and should provide adequate in house storage facility for the storage of hazardous waste and there after send it to TSDF Nimbuan.
(7) The Industry needs to apply & obtain the authorization under Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
(8) The Industry need to dispose of the raw material drums as required under the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
(9) The Industry needs to Install OCMES & CCTV cameras at the outlet of the Effluent treatment plant & connect it with the Website of PPCB so as to monitor real time 24X7 discharge of waste water by the industry.
(10) The industry needs to install 2 no. high volume samples, one at the front boundary & 2nd at the back side along with the CCTV cameras & to connect it to server of Punjab Pollution Control Board to monitor 24X7 the air emissions discharge from the Industry.
(11) The industry is using toxic chemical in the manufacturing 27 process, so it needs to get the valid license from the Director of Factories under The Factory Act, 1948.
(12) The industry needs to obtain Consent to Establish (NOC) of the PPCB for the expansion project which is presently in progress at site without the approval of the Board.
(13) The Industry needs to immediately stop using pet coke as fuel as the industry has not installed 2 stage lime scrubber as per the policy of the Board.
(14) The industry needs to adopt cleaner production technology & Best practice for operation of unit as mentioned below:-
Material Receiving Segregate spilled materials.
Formulated operator training and quality control procedures to enable proper handling.
Ensure first-in-first-out for raw materials.
Maintain a raw material order inventory so that residual raw material losses may be minimized.
Rinse the containers residues into the batch, to remove the final residuals.
Material transfer Ensure routine equipment maintenance, inspections, and operating care to prevent material losses.
Optimize and maximize the use of dry dust collection equipment.
Clean outs form filter equipments may also be used to make sale able dye formulations.
When pumping liquids, ensure that leaky connections are sealed.
Process Reactor & Determine the amount of Settlements & precipitation agent at the product Isolations development stage as excess use of these agents leads to waste generation.
Determine the maximum or minimum temperature needed to ensure proper crystal formulation of the production used in the isolation.
Control the volume of the batch to reduce the amount of precipitating agent and to optimize the amount of 28 product precipitated from the mother liquor.
Filtration Use lifter clothes that can be cleared or laundered so as to reuse the filter media for different products.
Reduce the number of leaks by implementing and overseeing a standard procedure for cleaning, resetting, and closing the filter press.
Establish testing parameters and values for each product that indicate the end point for washing.
Reduce the amount of filter wash water used by filling the filtration equipment with wash water, allowing it to soak in the filter unit for a period of time, and repeating the procedure.
Grinding Eliminate the practice of using excess and un-necessary deducsters in order to save on raw materials usage and costs and to reduce the generation of off-spec products.
Optimize media selection in the milling operation to reduce the frequency required for media disposal.
Optimize product formulations and grinding conditions to minimize screens blockage and thus the waste water associated with removing, cleaning and replacing screens.
Optimize grinding temperature and media to shorten grinding times and reduce energy usage.
Blending Capture dusts generated during blending by dust collection systems and recycle into the same product or other saleable products, such as a black dye.
Train the blend formulator and blending equipment operators to avoid excessive use of dedusters and evaluate different methods of deduster addition.
32. In view of the above violations, Environmental Engineer, Regional 29 Office, Amritsar recommended issue of show cause notice for refusal of consents and notice under Section 31A of Air Act 1981 and Section 33A of Water Act 1974. Consequently, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the industry on 30.03.2021 by Chief Environmental Engineer and thereafter, he took the following decision:
"1. The industry is directed to stop the construction of expansion made by the industry in its - premises immediately till it obtains the required NOC/CTOs/EC (if any required).
2. The industry is directed to immediately stop discharge of untreated coloured effluent into MC Sewer.
3. The industry is given the time period up to 31/05/2021 to take all the steps and make all the pollution control arrangements in place as suggested by the team headed by Sh. Harbir Singh, Senior Environmental Engineer of the Board as mentioned below:
a) The industry to certify whether the industry is manufacturing a banned dye or non banned dye and the industry shall submit the certificate of the product it is engaged in manufacturing from the technical institutes of Good repute.
b) The industry shall submit Action Plan to shift to continuous process instead of batch process of operation of manufacturing.
c) The industry shall get the ETP designed from an technical institute of good repute for the treatment of waste water generated from the Dye & Dyes Intermediate manufacturing Industries & accordingly to install a new adequately designed ETP.
d) The industry for the control air emission being emitted from of various sources and from the process reactors, shall install adequately designed APCD's on all these source and provide adequate stack height and sampling arrangements.
e) The industry shall identify all the source of solid waste being generated from the various process, as they are coved under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and should provide 30 adequate in house storage facility for the storage of hazardous waste and there after send it to TSDF Nimbuan.
f) The Industry shall apply & obtain the authorization under
Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling &
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
g) The industry shall dispose of the raw material drums as
required under the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
h) The industry shall install OCMES & CCTV cameras at the outlet of the Effluent treatment plant & connect it with the Website of PPCB so as to monitor real time 24X7 discharge of waste water by the industry.
i) The industry shall install 2 no. high volume samples, one at the front boundary & 2nd at the back side along with the CCTV cameras & to connect it to server of Punjab Pollution Control Board to monitor 24X7 the air emissions discharge from the industry.
j) The industry shall get the valid license from the Director of Factories under The Factory Act, 1948 for usage of toxic chemical manufacturing process.
k) The industry shall obtain Consent to Establish, (NOC) of the PPCB/EC (if applicable any) for the expansion project which is presently in progress at site without the approval of the Board.
l) The industry shall immediately stop using pet coke as fuel as the industry has not installed 2 stage lime scrubber as per the policy of the Board and shall switch over to CNG Gas usage in its boilers.
4. The industry shall adopt cleaner production technology & Best practice for operation of unit as mentioned in the recommendation part (14) of report as suggested by the team headed by Sh. Harbir Singh, Senior Environmental Engineer of the Board above in the proceedings part.
5. The Consents to operate applied by the industry under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, be extended to 31/05/2021 with the conditions stipulated above.
31
6. The electric connection of the industry be extended up to 31/05/2021 and direction be issued to the PSPCL accordingly.
7. The fortnightly progress of the activities of above pollution control arrangements made by the industry shall be submitted by the industry to the Board and Regional Office, Amritsar shall verify the same personally.
8. Further action shall be taken by the Board in the in the matter after reviewing the progress reports submitted by Regional Office, Amritsar the industry."
33. In view of above decision, CTOs under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 were extended upto 31.05.2021 vide consent order dated 09.04.2021.
34. Thereafter, several complaints were further received by PSPCB from the local residents, some of the applicants in the present case and also from Monitoring Committee headed by Justice Jasbir Singh constituted by Tribunal. Premises of the industry, thereafter, was visited by authorities of PSPCB on 04.05.2021 and during their inspection, they made following observations:
"1. As per the representative, the only construction that was being done by the industry during the visit of team PPCB last time was the alteration of shed. No new expansion was observed at site, except for construction of ETP.
2. The industry is still discharging its floor washing into sewer in form of untreated coloured effluent.
3. The Industry is yet to submit a certificate regarding manufacturing of non-banned dye from a technical institute of good repute. As per the representative, they are in touch with GNDU.
4. As per the representative, it was not possible to shift to continuous process instead of batch process of operation of manufacturing of dyes.32
5. The civil work for the ETP has started on site.
6. The Industry is yet to install adequately designed APCD's on air emission from process reactors and to provide adequate stack height and sampling arrangement.
7. As per the representative, they are in talk with TSDF Nimbuan to obtain membership to dispose of HW generated in the premises
8. The representative told that the industry will apply for HW authorization after it obtains TSDF Nimbuan membership.
9. Drum are not being disposed off to authorized recycler as per Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
10. As per the representative, OCMES & CCTV cameras will be installed after completion of ETP.
11. The industry is yet to install 2 no. high volume samplers.
12. The industry has not received / obtained valid license from the Director of Factories under the Factory Act, 1948 for usage of toxic chemical manufacturing process. As per the representative, the same has been generated but not received in hard copy.
13. The industry is still using pet coke as fuel in the thermopac without ....... scrubber as APCD.
14. The industry has installed a new gas fired thermopac 10 lakh calories. The installation of pipeline and fitting was under
process. The same will be completed within a week. The meter for CNG has been installed outside the gate of the industry.
15. The industry will switch over to CNG usage for its thermopac within a week as told by the representative."
35. The above observations show that industry was still violating environmental laws and norms. Consequently, show cause notice for revocation of CTOs and notice to issue directions was issued to the industry, requiring it to reply to the show cause notice dated 04.05.2021. The following directions under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and Section 33 31A of Air Act 1981 were given:
"1. That the Consents to operate applied under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, will be revoked.
2. That the industry will dismantle and remove all outlets and stop forthwith discharging its effluent into sewer or through any other mode & emissions.
3. That the industry will not restart any process unless all necessary water/air pollution control measures are taken and concentration of various pollutants in its effluent/emissions conforms to the effluent/emissions standards laid down by the Board for such discharges/emissions.
4. That the industry will not restart discharging effluent/emissions until it obtain consent of the Board u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention & control of Pollution) Act 1974 as amended in 1988 & u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 as amended in 1987.
5. That Punjab State Electricity Board authority will be directed to disconnect the supply of electricity available to the Industry."
36. Opportunity of hearing was given to the representative of respondent 5 on 07.05.2021, on which date, Sh. Rohit Handa on behalf of respondent industry appeared. He stated that civil construction work of ETP has started and it is likely to be completed within 15 days. With regard to certificate for non-banned dyes, industry's representative said that it is in touch with GNDU authorities; it is not possible to shift to continuous process from batch type manufacturing activity and the industry has contacted NGPL for hazardous waste agreement which will be done shortly. For disposal of waste, the industry had entered into an agreement with M/s Agarwal & Co. and the industry has also placed orders for OCEMS, CCTV and high volume sampler installation. Industry also claimed to have installed PNG pipelines for which it will shift within one 34 week.
37. PSPCB, however, finding continuous violations of the provisions of Water Act 1974 as also Air Act 1981 on the part of the industry, revoked CTOs granted under Air Act 1981 and Water Act 1974, vide order dated 07.05.2021, copy whereof has been placed on record as annexure R-4/C to the reply of PSPCB at page 121. Another letter of the same date i.e., 07.05.2021 was issued by PSPCB to PSPCL with a direction to disconnect electric connection with immediate effect and not to restore the same without permission of PSPCB.
38. PSPCB also received some further complaints and its Environmental Engineer, Regional Officer, Amritsar visited the premises of the industry on 17.05.2021 when he observed that though electric connection of the industry was lying disconnected but the industry was operating with DG sets and it was a clear violation of the directions issued to the industry vide letter dated 07.05.2021 under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and Section 31A of Air Act 1981. Since unit was clearly violating the provisions of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, hence PSPCB passed order on 17.05.2021 for sealing water and air polluting machinery as well as DG sets available at the industry site and also to restrain the industry from its operation.
39. Pursuant to the above order dated 17.05.2021, machinery of the industry was sealed in the presence of Shri Rohit Handa, partner of the firm of respondent 5.
40. Industry again applied for grant of CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 and deposited requisite fee on 04.06.2021. The premises of 35 the industry was visited by the officials of PSPCB on 07.06.2021 who made following observations:
"1. During visit, the industry was not in operation as the electric connection lying disconnected.
2. The water polluting / air polluting machineries were lying sealed.
3. The Industry has upgraded its Effluent Treatment Plant and ETP consists of Bar Screen - Oil & Grease chamber- Equalization Tank
-Flocculation Tank- Primary Tube Settler- MBBR 1- MBBR 2 - Secondary Tube Settler- Pre-Filtration Tank/Sump- Pressure Sand Filter- Dual Media Filter- Activated Carbon Filter- Discharge. The industry has also submitted feasibility report of the ETP from M/s Universal Enviro Engineers, Amritsar.
4. The Industry has submitted that we are not manufacturing any banned dyes and we are making basic dyes, which are non- banned Items.
5. The representative of the Industry submitted that it is not possible for us to shift to continuous process from batch type process only.
6. The Industry has Installed 02 nos. wet scrubbers with 02 nos.
reactors separately. Each scrubber is attached with water re- circulation tank attached below. The reactor is attached with the vertical HDPE scrubber with counter current flow as gas coming from reactors and scrubbing alkaline water and he stated that they have purchased the components of scrubber and install as per requirements of the process. As the industry was not in operation, hence the fumes which are to emitted by the industry could not be verified.
7. The one no. thermopac being operated with pet coke was lying sealed. During visit, it was observed that the industry has changed its fuel from petcoke to piped natural gas and the fitting for supply of piped natural gas have been laid by the industry. At present the industry is lying closed as sealed by the Board.
8. The industry has not installed OCMES & CCTV cameras at the outlet of the Effluent treatment plant. Also the industry has not installed 2 no. high volume samples, one at the front boundary & 2nd at the back side along with the CCTV cameras.
9. The industry has not submitted valid license from the Director of 36 Factories under The Factory Act, 1948 and submitted that they have already been granted the license but the concerned person who has access to the portal is unwell due to Covid-19. Hence, they will submit the same within 15 days.
10. The industry has installed 01 no. D.G. Set of capacity 82.5 KVA, which is fitted with canopy.
11. The industry has made an agreement with M/s Aggarwal Manufacturing Co., Ludhiana for lifting of hazardous waste category 33.1, 5.1 and 35.3 an agreement with TSDF, Nimbua vide membership no. 2878.
41. On the representation of industry and its explanation, Chairman, PSPCB took following decisions and allowed temporary restoration for electric connection for 03 months and granted CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 for a period of 03 months:
"1. The industry shall submit an undertaking to the PPCB within 07- days in shape of commitment that the industry will make himself available during the Audit by the team and shall also ensure that the industry is in operation during the inspection by the Audit team.
2. The industry will achieve all standard and norms for effluent discharge and air emission as prescribed by MoEF, Govt of India, Central Pollution Control Board and Punjab Pollution Control Board.
3. The industry will install Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System and High volume sampler by 15 September 2021.
4. The industry will check regarding the SOP for solvent using industry issued by CPCB and in case they are applicable, the industry will comply with all the SOP's within 45-days.
5. The industry will not use pet coke as a fuel in the furnace of the boiler in future.
6. The industry will not manufacture Dye or dye intermediate without obtaining Environment Clearance as required under the EIA notification dated 14/09/2006.
7. The industry shall submit BG of Rs. 10 Lacs to the PPCB within 37 10-days period to the effect that:-
a) The industry shall not manufacture dye & dye intermediate without obtaining Environment Clearance as required under the EIA notification dated 14/09/2006.
b) The industry shall make available himself during the audit and shall also ensure that industry shall be in operation during the Audit by Audit team.
c) The industry shall comply with all the standards and norms for effluent discharge and air emission as prescribed by MoEF, Govt of India, Centre Pollution Control Board and Punjab Pollution Control Board.
d) The industry shall comply with the various provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 & Hazardous & Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
8. The consent to operate under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 will be allowed for 03-months period.
9. Directions u/s 31-A of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and u/s 33-A of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 be allowed for temporary restoration of electric connection for 03-months period and Plant & machinery shall be desealed by the Regional Office for 03-months period.
42. The above decision was communicated to respondent 5 vide letter dated 17.08.2021 sent by Senior Environmental Officer. The letter also shows that a technical team was constituted comprising following:
Sr. Name Department Nominee
No.
1 Dr. Varinder Kaur Department of Chairperson
Chemistry, GNDU
2 Mr. Sachin Kumar Department of Member
Chemistry, GNDU
3 Mr. Parambir Malhi Department of Member
Chemistry, GNDU
4 Representative of Centre Centre Pollution Member
38
Control Board of Control Board, New
Pollution Delhi
5 Environmental Engineer Environmental Convener
Engineer, Regional Member
Office, Amritsar
43. The above technical team was directed to conduct technical audit of the industry while it is in operation and submit a detailed Report to PSPCB within 03 months. It was also required to prepare a comprehensive report, material balanced statement and to conduct waste water monitoring, monitoring of ETP and air emission monitoring from stack and ambient air and get it analyzed from the labs of CPCB, PSPCB and PBTI and also to comment upon the product being manufactured by respondent 5 i.e., dye as banned and non-banned Dye.
44. Technical team visited the site on 13.10.2021 and submitted Report dated 14.12.2021, copy whereof is on record as annexure R-4/G at page no. 139 to the reply of PSPCB. Besides other, Report says that ETP was not found functional at the time of visit; unit was found using Toluidine in manufacture processes which was banned by Government of India and fumes were being emitted during manufacturing/standardization of dyes. Thus, it is clear that besides the fact that ETP was not functional, adequate arrangements were not made to control air pollution.
45. Accordingly, PSPCB issued order dated 10.01.2022 refusing CTO, sealing of the plant and machinery along with DG set of the industry and disconnection of electric connection.
46. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2022, respondent 5 preferred an Appeal before Appellate Authority constituted under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 i.e., Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department 39 of Science Technology and Environment. Appellate Authority passed order dated 21.02.2022, and as an interim measure, permitted industry to operate subject to certain conditions. The operative part of Appellate order dated 21.02.2022 reads as under:
"6) After hearing the parties and examining the relevant record, it is observed that it is not the case that the unit of the appellant has been closed by the Board only on the basis of manufacturing of banned dyes, but some other shortcomings were also noticed by the visiting team and the report of the Technical Committee in this regard has already been supplied to the appellant by the Board. The appellant is, thus, directed to remove the shortcomings pointed out by the visiting team at the earliest to the satisfaction of the Board. The orders of closure passed by the Board are not permanent in nature. Prima facie its seems that the dyes which have been mentioned in the case are not banned in India. However, the Board is directed to seek a clarification from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India in this regard as to whether the dyes namely Auramine Yellow, Melachite Green as well as O-toluidine are banned in India or not. In view of these observations and directions, the operation of the appellant unit is hereby allowed as an interim measure for a period of one month from the date of issuance of this order, however, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not manufacture the dyes which have been prohibited by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and shall also not cause any environmental pollution. The Board is directed to visit the unit of the appellant frequently during the said period of one month and submit its report with regard to the compliance of the shortcomings. If any complaint is received during this period, the Board shall take prompt action and video-graph the moment."
47. Pursuant to the Appellate order dated 21.02.2022, PSPCB issued a letter dated 04.04.2022, requesting PSPCL to restore electric connection of respondent unit temporarily for a period of one month. Copy of the said letter was also forwarded to respondent 5, requiring it to comply with the directions of the Appellate Authority which were as under:
"1. The industry shall remove the shortcomings pointed out by the visiting team at the earliest to the satisfaction of the Board, the 40 report of which has already been supplied to the industry vide Board's letter no. 49-50 dated 10/01/2022.
2. The industry shall not manufacture the dyes which have been prohibited by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and shall not cause any environmental pollution.
3. The industry shall apply for and obtain the Consent to Operate of the Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, immediately."
48. PSPCB, thereafter, sent a letter dated 12.04.2022 to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as 'MoEF&CC'), seeking information regarding certain dyes namely Auramine Yellow, Melachite Green as well as O-toluidine whether banned in India or not. No response was received from the Government of India.
49. Before the Appellate Authority, matter was heard on 06.05.2022. Respondent 5 placed an information received under RTI Act 2005 from MoEF&CC before Appellate Authority to clarify that Auramine Yellow, Melachite Green as well as O-toluidine were not banned in India whereupon Appellate Authority passed order dated 06.05.2022, disposing of Appeal and confirming its earlier interim order dated 31.02.2022 allowing operation of the industrial unit of respondent 5 subject to the conditions imposed by the aforesaid interim order dated 21.02.2022. Appellate Authority also directed PSPCB to make its own special efforts to obtain requisite information from MoEF&CC, check and monitor operation of respondent 5 unit for compliance of environmental laws.
50. In compliance of Appellate order dated 06.05.2022, PSPCB vide letter dated 16.06.2022 directed PSPCL to temporarily restore electric connection of respondent 5 for a period of six months i.e., upto 31.12.2022 41 and also extended consent under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 upto 30.11.2022.
51. Thereafter, PSPCB received a complaint on 21.06.2022 whereupon, it sought to inspect premises of the industry on the same date and collected samples of coloured water. After collection of samples by PSPCB officials, the owner of industrial unit closed main gate of industry. Since it was a surprise inspection, Assistant Environmental Engineer who visited the site on 21.06.2022 at 12:00 noon found that industry was discharging coloured effluent without any treatment leading to main sewer. Owner of industry snatched samples collected by the said official and closed main gate of the industry. Since there was a clear violation of the conditions of consent as also the provisions of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, hence CTO was revoked vide letter dated 08.07.2022 (annexure R-4/N at page 167 of the reply of PSPCB). Simultaneously, direction was also issued to PSPCL vide letter dated 08.07.2022 for disconnection of power connection of respondent 5 at both its premises i.e., 26, Focal Point and 26A Focal Point.
52. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by PSPCB, respondent 5 preferred Appeal but the same was disposed of by Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.08.2022 (annexure R-4/P at page 171-175 of the reply of PSPCB). Appellate Authority upheld order dated 08.07.2022 but granted liberty to appellant i.e., respondent 5 to comply with the directions of PSPCB as also the provisions of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 and then apply for fresh consent under the said Statutes. PSPCB was directed to decide applications seeking consent, if filed afresh, on merits. Copy of the Appellate Authority order dated 18.08.2022 was 42 communicated to the parties including PSPCB by Appellate Authority's letter dated 23.08.2022.
53. Consequently, PSPCB sent a letter dated 30.08.2022 to PSPCL, directing it to comply with the directions issued by PSPCB vide letter dated 08.07.2022 regarding disconnection of electric supply.
54. However, in respect of dispute of electricity bill, an interim order was obtained by respondent 5 from Civil Court, hence PSPCL could not disconnect electric connection of industrial unit of respondent 5.
55. In the circumstances, PSPCB, vide letter dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure R-4/R at page 177) directed to seal the plant, machinery and DG set of industrial unit of respondent 5. Letter dated 14.10.2022 was also issued to Gujarat Gas Limited directing it to stop supply of gas to respondent 5's industrial unit. PSPCB also imposed environmental compensation of Rs.8,37,500/- upon respondent 5.
56. Aggrieved by orders dated 12.10.2022 and 14.10.2022, respondent 5 preferred an Appeal No. 20/SOL/AA/2022 before Appellate Authority industry. The Appeal was disposed of by Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.11.2022 wherein it considered the facts that the unit was in operation for the last more than 25 years and substantial amount has already been vested, hence permanent closure of unit was not a solution and allowed operation of the unit subject to certain conditions. The relevant extract of the operative part of the order, contained in para 8, is reproduced as under:
"7) It is not disputed that the appellant has invested huge money in setting up the industrial unit, is providing employment to the people of the area and is paying taxes to the Government exchequer. The 43 right to business or profession, however, is not an absolute right, but is subject reasonable restrictions.
After hearing the parties, examination of the relevant record and considering the complaints as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the permanent closure of industrial unit situated in an industrial area is not a solution to the ongoing problem. However, the industrial unit has to make compliance of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and directions of the Board to contain the cause of pollution. In view of these facts, the appellant industry through its counsel was given reasonable time to consider for the installation of adequate pollution control system to contain the cause of pollution as suggested by the officer of the Board.
After thoughtful consideration, the counsel stated that the appellant is ready and undertakes to connect all the 8 vessels to the air pollution control system and to further make the effluent treatment plant operational with treatment material/ culture and component, but requested for 6 month time to make compliance as the system to connect all the vessels to air pollution control device has to be ordered from Pune, Maharashtra and the work shall be carried out block-wise. The counsel further stated that during the period of six months, the appellant will only use two vessels for industrial purposes and the remaining vessels will be used for storage of raw material. Only those vessels will be put into industrial use which will be connected with the air pollution control system block-wise.
8) In view of the above recorded facts and the undertaking given by the counsel with the consent of the appellant, I hereby allow the operation of the industrial unit subject to the following conditions that:
a) The appellant shall connect all the 8 vessels of the industrial unit with the air pollution control system within six months from today.
b) During the period of six months, the appellant shall use only two vessels for industrial processes and purposes which are connected to the air pollution control system and the remaining six vessels shall only be used for storing the raw material (it would however be ensured that such storage should not lead to any pollution) and shall not be used for any purpose which leads to any sort of pollution or any sort of emission generation.44
c) The effluent treatment plant with treatment material / culture and component shall be made operational.
d) The appellant may connect vessels to the air device in a block wise manner but all six vessels must be connected within 6 months.
e) The appellant shall only put into use the block-wise vessels to industrial use with prior consent of the Board which have been connected with the air pollution control system.
f) The orders dated 21.2.2022 and 6.5.2022 earlier passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal case filed by the appellant with regard to restrictions imposed in the case shall also remain operative.
g) The industry shall take extra care and adequate precautions to avert any kind of incident which may cause pollution.
h) The industry would follow all relevant guidelines issued by PPCB from time to time.
9) In view of these facts, the Board is directed to grant consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to the appellant with suitable conditions.
The Board shall monitor the progress of the appellant on monthly basis and keep surveillance of the operation of the industrial unit. The Board is further directed to implement this order and allow the opening and commencement of the industrial unit of the appellant immediately but in not more than five days from today during which period the appellant should complete the requisite formalities.
10) The appeal stands disposed of in above terms."
57. In view of the Appellate order, PSPCB granted consents under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 to respondent 5 industry vide orders dated 16.12.2022 and 02.12.2022 respectively. The consents were made operative till 23.05.2023.
58. The officials of PSPCB inspected industrial unit of respondent 5 on 03.01.2023 and found following violations at the premises: 45
"1. The industry has connected all the reaction vessels (08 no.) of the yellow auramine manufacturing section with the already install wet scrubber.
2. During visit only 02 no. reaction vessels (claim to be as storage vessel by the industry) at the first floor were in operation and wet scrubber provided as Air Pollution Control Device to the vessels was also in operation.
3. Reaction vessel at the green malachite manufacturing section was not in operation during visit, however it can be concluded that it has been operated recently. The industry has not provided any Air Pollution Control Device to this reaction vessel.
4. ETP installed by the industry was not in operation and no effluent was observed at inlet. Stablization of the ETP with media culture cannot be observed as the Industry has covered Aeration tank of the ETP with metal cover. Representative of the industry informed that aeration tank has been stabilized with media culture, however to prevent dust from falling in the tank, they have covered the same. Further informed that no effluent is generated from the premises, as such ETP is rarely being used."
59. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 08.02.2023 was issued to the industry and after considering the reply of respondent 5, PSPCB drew its conclusions as under:
"1. Since the industry has connected all the 08 no. reaction vessels of the yellow auramine manufacturing section to the existing APCD (meant for arresting emissions of only 02 no. reaction vessels), therefore the Air Pollution Control Device is under capacity or in-adequate to handle the fugitive emissions of 08 no. reaction vessels. Further the industry has not submitted any feasibility/technical report regarding the adequacy of this wet scrubber for arresting the emissions from 08 no. reaction vessels.
2. During visit to the industry, Reaction vessel at the green malachite manufacturing section was not in operation however from the onsite condition/physical condition of the vessel it was concluded that it has been operated recently and no Air Pollution Control Device has been provided to the reaction vessel at the green malachite manufacturing section.
3. ETP Installed by the industry has not been made operational as Stabilization of the ETP with medla culture cannot be observed 46 as the industry has covered Aeration tank of the ETP with metal cover. Further during the visit, the industry has given lame excuse that to prevent dust from falling in the tank, they have covered the aeration tank.
4. The industry has installed OCEMS at the outlet of ETP however operation of the same alongwith record and compliance regarding its connection with Punjab Pollution Control Board and CPCB has not been submitted by the industry till date. The industry here has again given lame excuse that there is no discharge of wastewater from the premises.
5. The industry has failed to submit compliance report regarding shortcomings as identified during the technical and environmental audit of the industry which has been conveyed to the industry by Punjab Pollution Control Board.
6. The industry has failed to submit compliance regarding the operation of 02 no. HVS Installed at the front boundary and back boundary wall of the industry for 24 hrs in a day for 03-months period regularly and getting the ambient air emission tested from a lab approved under EPA Act 1986 for required."
60. Accordingly, PSPCB vide letter dated 09.03.2023 (annexure R-4/U at page 200) issued following directions which included direction for closure of the unit:
"Now, therefore, Punjab Pollution Control Board, in exercise of the power conferred upon the Board u/s 33-A of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 & u/s 31-A of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 having been fully satisfied that it is a fit case to Issue directions and here by, direct as follows:-
1. That the industry will stop operating an Industrial Plant & stop forthwith discharging any emissions/effluent from its industrial premises into atmosphere.
2. That Industry shall not restart any process/plant unless all necessary air pollution control measures are taken and concentration of various pollutants conforms to the emissions/effluent standards laid down by the Board.
3. That the industry shall not restart discharging air pollutants until it obtains the consent of the Board to operate an Industrial Plant refused u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 47 1981 as amended in 1987 u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974.
4. That Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. will disconnect the supply of electricity available to industry.
In case of the failure to comply with the above directions, you are liable for action u/s 41 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & as amended in 1988 and u/s 37(1) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended in 1987."
61. Directions were also issued to PSPCL for disconnection of electric supply of the industry. PSPCB also formed a team of 03 officials to find out whether there are still violation on the part of proponent or not. The Committee visited the premises of the unit on 11.04.2023 and submitted its Reports with the following observations and recommendations:
"During visit, it was observed as under:-
1. The industry was not in operation, however electric connection of the industry is still intact. During visit, Sh. Rohit Handa representative of the industry informed that the industry is not in operation today as they have taken shut down for maintenance for the day.
2. The industry has installed ETP for treatment of effluent generated from its premises, however no effluent was observed in its collection tank. There are 02 no. aeration tanks in series provided to this ETP, however very less effluent/water was observed in the first aeration tank and no water/effluent was observed in the second aeration tank, which indicate that the ETP has not been stabilized and not in operational condition.
The industry has not provided any flow meter at the outlet of ETP and has not maintained any record regarding the operation of ETP.
3. The sensor of OCEMS connected to the outlet of ETP was without any lock and key arrangement, hence prone to tempering.
4. In the yellow auramine section, the industry has provided 06 no. vessels/reaction tanks on second floor and 07 no. 48 vessels/reaction tanks on first floor. During visit the industry claimed that 02 no. vessels/reaction tanks on the first floor and 02 no. vessels/reaction tanks on the second floor are not being used in the process, however all the vessels are being provided with connections and agitating motors, which clearly indicates that all the reactions vessels are in operationable condition. At the second floor, out of the remaining 04 no. reactions vessels, one was not connected with any APCD, one was individually connected to one of the two wet scrubbers and remaining 02 no. vessels are connected to other wet scrubber.
At the first floor, all remaining 05 no. vessels/reaction tanks were connected to the wet scrubber with which 02 no. vessels/reaction tanks from second floor are also connected.
As such one wet scrubber is only connected with one no. vessel/reaction tank and the other wet scrubber was connected with total 07 no. vessel/reaction tanks.
The industry has not provided any sampling arrangement in the form of ladder and platform to the stacks of existing wet scrubber to carry out emission sampling.
5. In the green malachite section, the industry has provided 07 no. vessels/reaction tanks on the ground floor. During visit the industry claimed that 03 no. vessels/reaction tanks are not being used in the process, however all the vessels are being provided with connections and agitating motors, which clearly indicates that all the reactions vessels are in operationable condition. Remaining 04 no. vessels/reaction tanks were connected to a common pipe through ID fan alongwith stack of inadequate height. It has not provided APCD to this section. Meanwhile the industry has applied for obtaining fresh consent to operate under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 through OCMMS dated 16.03.2023 and 31.03.2023. On both occasions consent applications were returned being incomplete. During the applications the industry has submitted adequacy report of the APCDs, wherein it has been mentioned that 02 no. wet scrubbers have been provided as APCDs to the yellow auramine section which are not being concurrent as observed during the visit. Further mentioned that wet scrubber has been provided to the green malachite section which is also contradictory as observed during visit as no ACPD has been provided to the green malachite section yet. There has been no mentioning of emission standards to 49 achieved by these APCDs.
In view of above, it was concluded that the industry has failed to comply with orders dated 16.11.2022 of Hon'ble Appellate Authority and has been operating the vessels/reaction tanks without connecting the same to adequate Air Pollution Control Devices. Further the industry has failed to comply with the directions of Board and has been deliberately operating the industry, causing nuisance to the society.
It is therefore recommended that:-
1. Bank Guarantee bearing no. 051BG01212210001 amount to Rs. 10 Lac deposited by the industry in this office valid upto 11.09.2023 as an assurance to comply with decisions of the hearing dated 06.08.2021 and the provision of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 shall be encashed as the industry has failed to comply with the directions of the Board and conditions of the consent to operate under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
2. Environmental Compensation of suitable amount shall be imposed on the industry for operating the unit in violations of the directions u/s 33-A of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31-A of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for its closure.
62. Thus, it is evident that Respondent 5 applied for grant of CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 on 16.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 but the consent applications were returned by PSPCB since the same were incomplete.
63. Pursuant to the recommendation of inspection team vide Report dated 11.04.2023, bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs was encashed and a direction was issued by letter dated 04.05.2023 by Senior Environmental Engineer to Environmental Engineer to seal plant and machinery of the industry. When officials of PSPCB visited the site for sealing plant and 50 machinery, request was made by the industry that huge quantity of raw material was present in the process at the premises, hence sealing of machines could not carried out.
64. Against closure order dated 09.03.2023, respondent 5 preferred Appeal No. 12/SLO/AA/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure R-4/Z at page 209/210 of the paper book) with the direction to apply for fresh CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 and the said applications were required to be dealt with by PSPCB through another officer and decide on merits within 15 days.
65. Consequently, respondent 5 applied for grant of consent under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981. The facts were sought to be verified by PSPCB by visiting the site on 08.06.2023. The observations of inspection team read as under:
"To verify the latest status the industry was again visited by this office on 08.06.2023 and it was observed as under:-
1. The industry was not in operation and electric connection of the industry was found intact.
2. The representative of the industry during visit informed that they have not operated the industry for last 07 days in compliance to the directions, however he refused to get the machinery sealed as he repeatedly stated that any mishapenning/hazardous accident may occur during sealing of the machinery.
3. The industry has connected 09 no. reaction vessels of yellow auramine section to the already installed wet scrubbers and has now installed separate wet scrubber as APCD to the green malachite manufacturing section (04 no. reaction vessel and 06 no. storage tanks).
4. The industry has provided sampling holes into stack of APCDs for facilitation of emission sampling.51
5. The industry has now stabilized the effluent treatment plant with development of bacteria in the 02 no. aeration tanks along with aeration. No effluent was observed at the inlet, outlet and in any other component of the ETP. The industry has provided flow meter at the outlet of ETP.
6. The industry has connected its OCEMS to the server of the Board and has now provided lock and key arrangement to the sensor of OCEMS connected to the outlet of ETP.
The industry has now provided APCD to the yellow auramine manufacturing section as well as green malachite manufacturing section and has stabilized the effluent treatment plant, however the process of the industry has to be got analyzed from a Government agency/Institute of Reputes so that adequacy of APCD as well as ETP can be checked and further emission/effluent control measures if required may be adopted by the industry.
66. CTO was granted vide letter dated 27.06.2023 valid upto 31.12.2023 in the light of the steps taken by respondent 5 as noticed in the above inspection report with the special condition that industry shall conduct an environmental audit at its own expenses within three months from IIT Delhi regarding installation of EEP and air pollution devices.
67. Thereafter, this Tribunal's order dated 10.08.2023 intervened wherein Joint Committee was constituted for submitting a factual and action taken Report and the Joint Committee submitted Report 21/22.11.2023.
Reply dated 28.11.2023 filed by Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar (respondent 2):
68. The said reply does not say anything on its own but in para it is said that reply submitted by PSPCB is being endorsed.
Objections dated 29.11.2023 to Joint Committee's Report dated 21/22.11.2023, filed by applicant:
69. It is said that Joint Committee has failed to mention about severe 52 pollution already done by respondent industry; there is no mention of poor condition of sheds whose sheets have got badly damaged due to acidic fumes, health issues to the workers as well as nearby residents including applicants have not been attended; respondent industry was found violating environmental norms for discharging effluent in sewerage system as well as causing environmental pollution since last many years but all these aspects have not been gone into by Joint Committee in its Report.
Further, despite various closure orders and directions of PSPCB for installation of equipments to prevent environmental pollution, no such efforts were made by respondent industry and it has regularly polluting environment even by illegally operating when on record it was inoperational. Even PSPCB has hidden such facts of non-compliance of closure and other directions issued by it from time to time. At the time of visit of the premises by Joint Committee, applicant-6, Shri Davender Pal Singh was present and informed Joint Committee as under:
"i. The production to manufacture products which generate pollution were stopped after NGT sought report from the concerned authorities. These facts can be ascertained by comparing hourly consumption of electricity as well as obtaining and comparing maximum demand of electricity from the concerned department. The less production is mere an eyewash to mislead the Joint Committee as well as Hon'ble NGT.
ii. That the Joint Committee may compare consumption of PNG in the past and during the preceding period of declaration of enquiry since the unit has been mandated to operate on PNG.
iii. That the Material audit (mass balance equation) for the manufacturing process for every item being manufactured should be obtained from the industry.
70. As per Report unit is involved in batch wise standardisation operation of dyes for which processors application is needed. Unit is 53 manufacturing basic dyes using oil yellow, Oil Green, Glycerine, Benzaldehdye and dyes methyl aniline and other chemicals such as Ortho Toluidine, Mono Cholorobenezane and acids as raw material. Total production of the unit, monthly is about 6 MT and annual it is 70 MT. As per online information, unit has capacity of 2500 MT with annual turn over of 100 Crores to 500 Crores but all these aspects have not been looked into by Joint Committee who has made suggestions/recommendations in a very mild manner. Committee has not recommended any strict action against the polluting industry. The unit has showed under capacity production, failed to follow environmental norms and if allowed to commence its production, it will produce 20 to 30 times more than the production shown and will cause huge damage to environment. Joint Committee Report is mere an eye wash to save polluting industry and even PSPCB has not performed its duty as per law. Though effective action was required to be taken but no action has been taken against the polluting industry nor any such action has been pointed out in Joint Committee's Report. Applicant-2, thus has requested for rejection of Joint Committee Report.
Reply dated 02.02.2024 filed on 03.02.2024 by respondent 5 i.e., Project Proponent:
71. The reply is in three parts; firstly, it has raised certain preliminary objections; secondly, replied on merits; and thirdly, it has also filed objection to Joint Committee Report dated 22.11.2023.
72. In the preliminary objection, it is said that unit was established in 1996; engaged in procuring dyes in powder form from the units manufacturing dye and dye intermediate for carrying out mixing and blending process of pure form of dyes to get standardised dyes of desirable 54 purity, which is needed by the textile units. The respondent industry is registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies in the name of Amar Colour Chem (India). It has explained its working process and said as under:
The unit purchases basic dyes from different suppliers and then proceed to standardise the same as per market requirement. Major products manufactured by respondent 5 includes Auramine Yellow dyes and Melachite Green dye. In order to manufacture Auramine Yellow with the strength of 30%, process involves mixing of basic yellow colour and glycerine which is stirred and steamed at a particular temperature. There is no evaporation of the material in environment. After the above process, material is transferred to storage tank and subsequently packed after following the said procedure. Same is the procedure for manufacturing Oil Green dye.
Though there is no evaporation of material or discharge of water pollution, yet on the instructions of PSPCB, respondent 5 had installed an ETP whose functional feasibility has been certified by Universal Enviro Engineers, Fatehgarh, Churain Road, Muradpura, Amritsar vide certificate dated 03.06.2021 (annexure R-4 at page 272 of the paper book).
73. Several false complaints have been made against respondent 5 though it has been complying with the environmental laws and norms continuously. It is said that respondent 5 is victim of false complaints made on various occasions. In PSPCB proceedings dated 03.01.2022, a complaint was noted that respondent 5 is still operating despite closure order but on the actual site visit on 02.01.2022, the unit was found closed.
Against various orders passed by PSPCB, broadly Appellate Authority has 55 allowed functioning of respondent 5 and one such order is dated
06.05.2022. PSPCB is also illegally declining/returning applications for grant of CTO submitted from time to time, though Appellate Authority took a different view in the matter and in this regard, Appellate orders dated 16.11.2022 and 31.05.2023 are referred.
74. Replying on merits, it is stated that false allegations have been made that respondent 5 is habitual violator though various Appellate orders have been passed which show factual position otherwise. The chemicals referred to being used by respondent 5 as banned though as a matter of fact, the same are not banned and no material otherwise has been placed on record. Raising objection to the Joint Committee Report, respondent 5 has submitted its reply to the 14 suggestions made by the Joint Committee in its Report, as under:
"1. In the process of standardisation of dyes, there is no discharge of any kind of effluent nor any toxic gases or fugitive fumes are released. Still, the answering respondent welcomes the stringent surveillance by the respondent Board.
2. The unit had already applied for the permission from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) for ground water abstraction vide application no.20240100047018. The status of the same is still pending. A copy of the application is Annexure R-12.
3. The unit had installed flow meter and is in process of installing electromagnetic flow meter. Since unit does not emit liquid discharge & log book is duty being maintained. A copy of the photograph of meter which is already attached is Annexure R-13.
4. The next suggestion is that Emergency Preparedness plan based on hazard identification and risk assessment and disaster management plan should be implemented in the unit. The unit is in the process of implementing the same and the same would be done as early as possible. For this purpose the respondent has already prepared on site emergency 56 plan and copy of the same is Annexure R-14.
5. That respondent submits that it is not the business of trading of Acetic Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Oxalic Acid etc. as there is no sale of the same. However, respondent still wishes to make all efforts to avoid any conflict. Therefore, the unit had already approached the officials of the Board for getting the NOC for the said purpose but the same is not being provided to the unit without giving any reasons. It is therefore requested to also direct the respondent Board to grant the requisite NOC to the answering respondent unit. A copy of the request letter dated 31.01.2024 is Annexure R-15.
6. The next suggestion is that the unit should obtain authorisation under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The unit had already entered into an agreement with one M/s Aggarwal Manufacturing Co & M/s Nimbua Green Field Punjab Ltd. Vide Membership No 2878 Dated 10.06.2021 for disposal of Used drums/containers, ETP sludge, process residue and expired chemicals. A copy of the agreements are annexed as Annexure R-16.
7. The unit had already taken public liability insurance policy. Vide Policy No.4008/ 319441233/00/000 Dated 05.12.2023 ICICI Lombard General insurance Co. Ltd. and a copy of the same is Annexure R-17.
8. The unit had already prepared on site /off site emergency plan of the plant area which was submitted to PPCB in June 2021. Still, the unit will submit the same again which is attached above as Annexure R-14.
9. The unit is in the process of improving the overall housekeeping of the plant process area.
10. The unit is in process of limiting/improving the leakage and spillage in the manufacturing process. The respondent submits that it is already taking extreme care and caution to ensure that this does not happen. Still the respondent has issued instructions to his supervisor to ensure that this is not done. Instructions have already been issued to the supervisor to ensure that utilisation of material must be under his supervision. A copy of such instructions is Annexure R-18. Further, the unit is also attaching the report obtained by it from one Jandiala Engineering and Allied Services regarding examination of mixing tank as Annexure R-19.57
11. The unit had already installed adequate fire-fighting arrangements and further in addition the unit has applied for the fire NOC from the concerned department. Supporting proof is Annexure R-20.
12. The unit had started carrying out regular occupational health check- up of engaged workers and records of the same is being maintained.
13. The unit is maintaining proper ventilation system in the work Zone by providing proper exhaust along with filter and duct in the process area of green dye stuff.
14. The unit had already put up proper display board at the entrance gate as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in WP 657/1995. Copy of the same is Annexure R-21.
Tribunal's order dated 06.02.2024:
75. Joint Committee Report was considered by Tribunal on 06.02.2024. During the course of arguments, applicant informed Tribunal that PSPCB has revoked CTO granted to respondent 5 but the said document was not on record. Thus, applicant was allowed opportunity to place the said document on record. Further PSPCB was directed to file fresh Report with regard to imposition of environmental compensation for past violations and action taken against respondent 5. Applicant also contended that despite revocation of CTO, industrial unit is functioning and, on this aspect, also, direction was given to PSPCB to verify the facts. Status Report dated 10.04.2024 filed by PSPCB:
76. Pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2024, this report has been submitted by PSPCB stating that earlier vide order dated 18.11.2022, environmental compensation of Rs. 8,37,500/- was imposed upon M/s. Amar Colour Chem India, Amritsar for violation of various directions issued by PSPCB. Thereagainst, proponent preferred Appeal No. 58 01/SLO/AA/2023/26. Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.01.2024 has disposed of the said Appeal, holding that PSPCB has not accorded opportunity of hearing to appellant before imposition of environmental compensation and violated law laid by Supreme Court in Deepak Nitrate Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (6) SCC 402. It has further been held that procedure for imposition of environmental compensation provided by Office Memorandum dated 01.10.2021 has also not been followed and, therefore, the matter was remanded to Chairman, PSPCB with a direction to re-consider and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Copy of the said Appellate order is on record is annexure-A at page 439 of the said Status Report.
77. It is further said that on a complaint received regarding emission of pungent odor and black smoke by the said unit, an inspection was made on 08.12.2023 when release of pungent odor was noticed and, therefore, CTO under Air Act 1981 was revoked vide order dated 10.01.2021 (annexure-B at page 444 to the Status report dated 10.04.2024). Thereafter, respondent industry has obtained auto-renewal of CTO under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 through Online Consent Management and Monitoring System (hereinafter referred to as 'OCMMS'), claiming compliances on self-declaration basis and consents generated through online system are valid upto 25.12.2026. Competent Authority i.e., PSPCB, however, has directed Regional Office to verify the self-claimed compliances by the industry.
78. Further a show cause notice dated 20.03.2024 (annexure-C at page 448 to the Status report dated 10.04.2024) was issued to proponent. Oral hearing was conducted on 28.03.2024 when Sh. Rohit Handa appeared in 59 the matter and stated that the industry has not operated on 14.10.2022 to 26.10.2022 and also on Gazette holidays. He has stated that industry has operated only for 32 days. He further said that IIT, Delhi was contacted for conducting environmental audit/study of the industry but no response was received by the Proponent. The industry has complied with suggestions and recommendations of the Joint Committee and, therefore, a request was made to not impose any environmental compensation upon the industry.
79. After hearing the representative of the industry, Chairman, PSPCB took following decisions as communicated to the industry vide letter dated 08.04.2022 of Senior Environmental Engineer, zonal Office, Amritsar:
"1. The EC Imposition case of the industry shall be referred to the EC assessment committee for calculation of environmental compensation.
2. After the receipt of report of the Environmental Compensation assessment committee, separate speaking order for imposition of Environmental Compensation will be passed by the Board.
3. The industry shall deposit the amount of Environmental Compensation within 07 days with the office of the Board at Amritsar after the order is conveyed.
4. The Regional Office shall visit the industry and verify the compliances claimed to be made by the industry with regard to the suggestions and recommendations of the Joint Committee and submit report within next 02 weeks.
5. In case of non-compliance of decisions mentioned at Sr.No.2 to 4 above, auto renewal of consents obtained by the industry shall stand revoked without any further notice."
Rejoinder dated 09.04.2024 filed by applicant in response to reply to respondent 5:
80. Various violations on the part of industry have been highlighted in para 5 of the rejoinder, which read as under:60
"i. The industry operates even when it is directed not to operate through other electricity connections;
ii. The industry is using non-consented fuel;
iii. The industry does not have consent to extract ground water but is continuing to do so through a bore well;
iv. The Department has not calculated and imposed Environmental Compensation despite flagrant violations of environmental norms;
v. The Industry has not taken Environmental Clearance, despite having undergone expansion in 2021-2022;
vi. The Industry has kept various hazardous chemicals in their premises such as Acetic Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Oxalic Acid without obtaining valid registration or permission for trading these Chemicals at the adjacent textile units;
vii. Permission under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management, and Trans Boundary Movement) Rule, 2016 has not been obtained by the Industry;
viii. The Industry has not installed adequate firefighting arrangements;
ix. The capacity which the industry is permitted to operate is being violated since the industry itself claims that it has the capacity to manufacture 2500 MT annually, i.e., about 35 times more than has been stated in the Reply and infact has a turnover of INR 100 to 500 Crores;
x. Innumerable complaints made by the Applicant regarding the continuous illegal emissions and operations without consent and in violation of directions issued by the PCB;
xi. No Audit report from IIT Delhi as required by the last Consent to Operate;
xii. Health Officer, Municipal Corporation found discharge into sewage which is completely impermissible;
xii. The overall hygiene in the Industry is not up to the mark, and xiv. The Industry is not provided any protective gear to its employees."61
81. It is said that industry has not placed on record all requisite permissions and sanctions to show that it had operated in accordance with law, it is incorrect that no air pollution or water pollution is being caused by the industry as several images and videos show emission of grey smoke through the chimney as well as fugitive fumes released from various unspecified places of the unit; unit was found in violation of environmental norms on several occasions by PSPCB resulting in disconnection of electric connection repeatedly as also revocation of CTO; the unit is situated in the neighbouring area of applicant-6 and constant emission from the unit is causing severe breathing problems to the applicant and other residents; certain expansions have been carried out by the industry without obtaining due permission and in violation of EP Act 1986 and unit is manufacturing huge quantity of chemicals dye having turn-over of more than Rs. 100 Crores and employing about 160 workers but these relevant aspects have not been considered by PSPCB in taking action against respondent 5; industry has multiple electric connections either in its own name or some other and whenever one electric connection was disconnected, it used to continue to run its industry from other electric connections, thus violating the directions of PSPCB; unit is not working as Zero Liquid Discharge industry since Joint Committee found yellow coloured water spread on the floor of the industry on multiple occasions; order dated 22.04.2022 issued by Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar shows that colured water was being discharged in sewerage by industrial unit of respondent 5; CTO dated 27.06.2023 contains a special condition that the industry shall get environmental audit regarding adequacy of ETP, air pollution control devices installed for control of fugitive emissions within three months but no such audit report has been 62 received or audit has been got conducted by the industry; industry is extracting ground water without permission from the Competent Authority; there is constant violation on the part of respondent 5 in regard of environmental norms; despite revocation of CTO dated 12.01.2024, respondent 5 unit is operating at odd hours and continuously causing air pollution and thereby defeating the provisions of law; the industry is highly polluting industry and functioning in complete disregard of environmental norms when parameters laid down under EP Act 1986, Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1984, therefore, direction for its permanent closure be issued. Documents filed by respondent 5 on 16.04.2024:
82. Copies of the following documents has been placed on record:
(i) Appellate order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Appeal No. 01/SLO/AA/2023 (annexure R-22 at page 511).
(ii) Show cause notice dated 19.02.2024 issued by PSPCB alleging violation of Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 (annexure R-23 at page 516).
(iii) Reply dated nil to the show cause notice dated 19.02.2024 submitted by M/s. Amar Colour Chem India (annexure R-24 at page 520).
(iv) Show cause notice dated 20.03.2024 issued by PSPCB (annexure R-25 at page 534).
(v) Letter dated 28.03.2024 submitted on behalf of respondent 5 to Chairman, PSPCB with a request not to impose any environmental compensation (annexure R-26 at page 539).
(vi) Order of Competent Authority dated 08.04.2024, revoking auto-renewal of consents obtained by respondent 5 (annexure R-27 at page 540).63
(vii) Copy of NOC dated 01.04.2024 received from Punjab Fire Service by respondent 5 (annexure R-28 at page 547).
(viii) Copy of the application submitted for renewal/grant of authorisation for collection/storage of hazardous and other waste. (annexure R-29 at page 548).
83. OA was finally heard on 16.04.2024. On the request of the parties' Counsels, liberty was granted to file written submissions, if any, within three working days when Tribunal reserved the order on OA. Written Submissions dated 20.04.2024 filed on 22.04.2024 on behalf of applicant-6:
84. On behalf of applicant-6, the above written submissions have been filed. His summarised submissions under four heads are as under:
"A. FINDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 21.11.2023
1. Consent under the Air and Water Act were earlier granted upto 30.06.2020.
2. Complaints received from time to time regarding acidic fumes/harmful gases and discharge of untreated effluent and accordingly time to time action was undertaken by the Board.
3. Recorded vide order dated 05.03.2021 passed in O.A. No. 938/2019 that M/s Amar Color Chem (India), against whom regular complaints were being received was found violating provision of the Water and Air Acts, and directions were issued for closure of the unit. (Ref: Report @ pg. 96)
4. Documents not available/provided by the industry:
i. Fire Safety Certificate/NOC from Punjab Fire Services. ii. Certification from Punjab Water Regulation 86 Development Authority.
iii. Statutory requirement under Public Liability Insurance Rules, 1991.
iv. Statutory requirement under Petroleum & Explosives Safety 64 Organization (PESO). (Ref: Report @ pg. 98)
5. Industry meeting water requirements through one bore well without any permission from the CGWA/PWRDA for ground water extraction.
6. Adequate ventilation arrangement as well as fugitive emission control system not provided.
7. Some treatment units of ETP found empty and dry - not used for long time.
8. Unit not adopting closed loop system for feeding of raw material into reaction vessel or to carry out semi-finished product, and using open channel.
9. No record maintained for quantity of effluent generation, treated effluent discharged and quantity of ETP sludge generated.
10. Unit has kept various hazardous chemicals in the premises, namely Acetic Acid, Sulphuric Act, Oxalic Acid without valid registration/permission for trading these chemicals at the adjacent textile unit.
(Ref: para 15 of Report @pg. 100)
11. Workers not using personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and safety.
12. Adequate firefighting arrangement not available.
13. No permission from PCB under Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management, and Trans Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
14. Separate system for discharge of storm water not provided.
15. Unit has not taken Public Liability Insurance.
16. Unit has not prepared on-site/off-site emergency plant of plant area.
17. Overall housekeeping of unit was poor.
B. PAST VIOLATIONS/ACTIONS AS PER REPLY OF PSPCB DATED 28.11.2023
1. Respondent No. 5 unit - M/s Amar Colour Chem India, is a small-
scale red category industrial unit and deals in manufacture of 65 basic dyes, glycerine, benzaldehyde and dyes methyl aniline using Oil Green, Oil Yellow and other chemicals like Ortho Toluidine, Mono Chlorobenzene and Acids as raw materials.
2. Unit had consents under Air and Water Acts which were valid upto 30.06.2020. Consents were further renewed on temporary basis.
(Ref: Para 3 @pg. 111)
3. Action taken by PPCB from time to time:
i. 27.11.2020 - Directions by PPCB, including for disconnection of electricity connection.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/B @pg. 118) ii. On request by unit, Consent extended till 31.05.2021 and orders for temporary restoration of electricity issued by PSPCB.
iii. 07.05.2021 - Consent revoked by PPCB for non-
compliance of decisions of hearings by the unit.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/C @pg. 121) iv. 07.05.2021 - Letter by PPCB for disconnection of electricity connection.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/D @pg. 130) v. 17.05.2021 - Directions by PPCB for sealing of water and air polluting machinery and D.G. Set.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/E @pg. 131) vi. 06.08.2021 - On request of unit, Consent extended till 16.11.2021 and orders for temporary restoration of electricity issued by PPCB after obtaining Bank Guarantee of INR 10 Lacs.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/F @pg. 133) vii. Technical Team constituted by PPCB to conduct audit of unit - Report dated 14.12.2021 records - ETP installed by not functioning and adequate arrangements to control air pollution were not made.
viii. 10.01.2022 - Closure order issued by PPCB.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/H @pg. 147) ix. 16.06.2022 - Consent extended till 31.12.2022 and orders for temporary restoration of electricity issued by PPCB.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/M @pg. 164) 66 x. 21.06.2022 - Industry was inspected and samples collected by officials of PPCB. Owner closed main gate and took away collected samples.
xi. 08.07.2022 - Consent revoked by PPCB.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/N @pg. 167) xii. 08.07.2022 - Letter by PPCB for disconnection of electricity connection.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/O @pg. 169) xiii. 12.10.2022 - Instructions issued by PPCB to seal the plant and machinery with D.G. Set.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/R @pg. 177) xiv. 16.11.2022 - Order by Appellate Authority imposing conditions on unit and time of 6 months granted to comply with conditions.
xv. 18.11.2022 - Plant and machinery sealed by PPCB. Environmental Compensation amounting to INR 8,37,500/- imposed on unit.
xvi. 16.12.2022 - Consents under Air and Water Acts granted till 23.05.2023. (Ref: Ann. R-4/T @pg. 185) xvii. 09.03.2023 - Closure order issued by PPCB after inspection. (Ref: Ann. R-4/U @pg. 200) xviii. Bank Guarantee of INR 10 Lacs was encashed by PPCB for noncompliance by unit.
xix. 24.05.2023 - Order for sealing of unit issued by PPCB.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/X @pg. 207) xx. 27.06.2023 - Consents under Air and Water Acts granted till 31.12.2023. Special condition - industry to conduct environmental audit at its own expense within 3 months from IIT, Delhi.
(Ref: Ann. R-4/AB @pg. 213) xxi. PPCB is taking action on the recommendations made in the Report dated 21.11.2023 of the Joint Committee.
C. STATUS REPORT OF PSPCB DATED 10.04.2024 67
1. Environmental Compensation of INR 8,37,500/- imposed vide order dated 18.11.2022, was set aside vide order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Appeal No. 01/SLO/AA/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Chandigarh.
(Ref: Ann. A @pg. 439)
2. Respondent No. 5 industry obtained auto renewal of Consent to Operate under the Air and Water Acts on 25.12.2023 which is valid till 25.12.2026.
3. Subsequently, Consents to Operate revoked vide order dated 12.01.2024 on the ground of non-consumption of consented fuel and complaints received.
(Ref: Ann. B @pg. 444)
4. Show Cause Notice dated 20.03.2024 was issued to the Respondent No. 5 unit in terms of the aforesaid order to assess Environmental Compensation.
(Ref: Ann. C @pg. 448)
5. After hearing the Partner of the Respondent No. 5 Industry, the case has been referred to the EC Assessment Committee for calculation of environmental compensation.
D. FACTORS OUGHT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE PPCB/ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
1. Information to be obtained from the Goods and Services (GST) and/or Income Tax Departments to assess the production capacity of the unit and the overall purchase of raw material and sales over the years to correctly assess extent of pollution caused by the unit. As per the website of the unit, it has a capacity of 2500 Mtons and an annual turnover of INR 100 to 500 Crores as per its listing on IndiaMart.
(Ref: Ann. PA-1 @Pg. 230) (Ref: Ann. PA-2 @Pg. 233)
2. Admittedly, the industry has been operating for the last 25 years. Whether any violation was found by the PPCB and any action was taken against the industry for the violations in the past?
(Ref: Para 10 of PPCB Reply @pg. 114)
3. Information/documents pertaining to the neighbouring textile 68 industry where raw materials were being stored ought to be obtained. Report records raw materials were stored in the nearby textile unit. Said unit has not been inspected. Present Industry is running multiple units under different names and causing even more pollution than what has been brought before this Hon'ble Tribunal. (Ref: para 15 of Report @pg. 100)
4. PPCB notes that the industry has multiple electricity connections, therefore, it could be presumed that the unit was operational even when orders for disconnection of electricity were issued by the PPCB from time to time. No assessment has been done for the said period to assess usage.
5. The PPCB records that during the visits on 05.02.2020 and 10.01.2022, further erection/expansion work was being carried out which reflects expansion of the industry. Whether the Industry obtained prior Environmental Clearance for the expansion carried out in 2020-21? If not, adequate action ought to be initiated. (Ref: Ann. R-4/B @pg. 118) (Ref: Ann. R-4/C @pg. 123)
6. The industry did not allow collection of samples and/or sealing of plant and machinery on multiple occasions in the past.
7. Past reports record harmful and carcinogenic emissions by the industry and in the absence of adequate fugitive emission control system, closure of the industry was recommended.
8. The Respondent No. 5 industry has not obtained prior permission to run/operate the D.G. Set.
9. The Industry has been using non-consented fuel for its operations, which has been recorded by the PPCB in its inspection reports also.
10. The unit is being operated even after Revocation of the consents dated 12.01.2024.
11. Observations/discrepancies/violations observed during various site inspections, and recorded in the various orders/directions passed by PPCB and this Hon'ble Tribunal ought to be considered at the time of imposition of Environmental Compensation.
12. Action under Section 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 ought to be initiated by the PPCB for past and present 69 violations.
13. Action ought to be initiated against the officer who has filed a factually incorrect Affidavit dated 10.04.2024 and attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal.
14. The industry should not be permitted to operate without obtaining all requisite permissions/sanctions/ directions/suggestions/observations as highlighted in various inspection reports from 2016 till date."
Written Submissions dated 30.04.2024 on behalf of respondent 5:
85. It is said that the thrust of the argument raised in OA is continuation of operation of the industrial unit despite revocation of consent granted under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981. The allegation is denied and respondent 5 in para 2 to 9 has given his explanation as under:
"2. That the aforesaid submission is incorrect. At page 75 of the written statement/reply filed by Respondent No.5, is the consent dated 27.06.2023 under the Air Act and at page 82, is under the Water Act, both of which are valid till 31.12.2023. Before the last date, consent was applied and was granted on 25.12.2023 valid uptill 25.12.2026, which is at page 87 (Annexure R-11 of the reply of Respondent No.5). Appellant contends that the said consent was revoked vide order dated 12.01.2024. The Said consent was revoked pertaining to the period till 31.12.2023 which itself creates a doubt that under whose influence the said order was passed, as the consent automatically was revoked on 31.12.2023 if further not applied. The Air Ambient report for the time period i.e., 08.12.2023 is also affixed. A copy of the revocation order is appended herewith as ANNEXURE R-30, though the appellant was directed to place the same on record vide order dated 06.02.2024. For The said document, in any case, is a matter of record. Perusal of the same would reveal that it is only passed under the Air Act and not under the Water Act. Secondly, perusal of the same would reveal that apparently, the said order was passed ex-parte, behind the back of the Respondent No.5 and without any Show Cause Notice. By now, it has been well settled by numerous Judgments that such order for revocation of consent, cannot be passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The said order, cannot, therefore, be called to be statutory order in the eyes of law. It has been passed without complying the mandatory procedure, without 70 which, consent cannot be revoked. The Respondent No.5 submitted a representation dated 17.01.2024, which is appended as ANNEXURE R-31. The aforesaid infirmities were highlighted. Apparently, PPCB also noticed aforesaid inherent illegalities in the order, which cannot lead to calling of an order revoking consent. Consequently, on 19.02.2024, at page 8, Annexure R-3 along with documents filed vide Diary No.13052023/6 dated 15.04.2024), Show Cause Notice was issued under the Air Act and Water Act, seeking to revoke the consent. At page 10, 2nd Paragraph from bottom, it notices the earlier revocation of consent letter issued under the Air Act. It also notices auto-renewal consent granted to the Respondent No.5. It also notices order dated 06.02.2024 at page 10 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal wherein in Para No.3 & 4, this Hon'ble Tribunal mentioned about the said revocation of consent order and granted time to Counsel for PPCB and Respondent No.5 to get instructions. Thus, PPCB being in knowhow of the entire backdrop, had issued this Show Cause Notice. Date of hearing was fixed as 06.03.2024. This Show Cause Notice also proves another vital thing that earlier revocation of consent letter dated 12/22.01.2024 since was issued without such Show Cause, is unsustainable.
3. That Respondent No.5 submitted its reply to the Show Cause Notice which is at page 14 of the said documents. It is to be noticed that now rectifying the earlier mistake, Show Cause notice is under both Air & Water Act as opposed to earlier revocation of consent issued under Air Act and not under Water Act.
4. That on 20.03.2024, PPCB issued another Show Cause Notice at page 26 of the aforesaid documents. Final opportunity of hearing was given for 28.03.2024. All the aforesaid events including the revocation of earlier consent order dated 06.02.2024, earlier documents, as referred to above, have already been noticed.
5. That on 28.03.2024, reply was submitted and it was highlighted that environment compensation is required to be recalculated pursuant to order dated 04.01.2024 at page 3 of the said documents.
6. That on 08.04.2024, Annexure R-27, page 31 of the aforesaid documents, proceedings of personal hearing held on 28.03.2024, have been placed on record. At page 36, it has concluded that even though, environment compensation has been reconsidered pursuant to order of such reconsideration passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority dated 04.01.2024 at page 3, and consequent 71 upon reconsideration, environment compensation is liable to be imposed, but assessment of the same is required to be done by the Environment Compensation Assessment Committee, which will separately consider. Important is at Sr.No.4 & 5 at page 36 wherein it has been directed that the regional office shall visit the Industry and verify the compliances and suggestions & recommendations of the Joint Committee and submit the report within 2 weeks. The said proceedings are dated 08.04.2024 and proceedings will expire on 22.04.2024. These directions at Sr.No.4 & 5 have been passed in the backdrop of earlier consent granted on 27.06.2023 valid uptill 31.12.2023; auto-renewal consent dated 25.12.2023 valid till 25.12.2026; revocation of consent and subsequent order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
7. That applicant, on the previous date of hearing, contended that PPCB did not have any power of review. The said argument may not be sustainable for the reason that firstly, it is no doubt, correct that there is no power of review after an authority passes a statutory order. But to call an order as a statutory authority, it is mandatory to comply with the basic requirements which lead to passing of such order. Since, no Show Cause Notice admittedly was issued before passing of the order dated 12.01.2024/22.01.2024 allegedly revoking the consent, it cannot be called as an order revoking the consent under the Act. Secondly, Respondent No.5, on coming to know of the aforesaid, immediately made a representation pursuant to which, fresh proceedings were initiated after PPCB also realized its mistake. Thirdly, revocation order dated 12.01.2024 was only under the Air Act and not under the Water Act. Fourthly, Respondent No.5 would have filed an appeal, provided if Respondent-PPCB would have contended that it does not wish to rectify the mistake. Having initiated the process of hearing, the applicant on calling for reply, Respondent No.5 had no occasion to file a separate appeal against such revocation of order, which by the own action of PPCB, did not exist on account of issuing fresh Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 with the subsequent proceedings being carried out in the light of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, there was no question of filing an appeal in these circumstances.
8. That in so far as hazardous waste disposal is concerned, at page 144 of the reply is the agreement with Nimbua Greenfield Punjab Limited dated 10.06.2021 for lifting of hazardous waste. Therefore, pending grant of consent for hazardous waste for which application no.24123943 at page 39 of the documents filed vide diary no. 0701114013052023/6 dated 15.04.2024 has 72 already been submitted and pending consideration, the said waste is being effectively discharged.
9. That as on today, once PPCB has already taken a decision to examine afresh, without the said report, it cannot be said that Respondent No.5 is acting illegally. Proceedings initiated in midway, present petition is, therefore, premature. In any case, grievance of the applicant stood redressed with the proceedings initiated by PPCB by virtue of Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2024 and 28.03.2024. Thus, it cannot be said that applicant was working without consent."
ARGUMENTS:
86. Learned Counsel appearing for applicants submitted that facts disclosed in OA, Joint Committee Reports and reply on behalf of PSPCB show that there is constant repeated violations of environmental laws and norms on the part of respondent 5 but no effective steps preventing it from committing such violations have been taken by the concerned authorities and on account of such inaction, respondent 5 is continuously damaging the environment, causing huge health hazards to the residents including the applicants who are residing in the vicinity of the industrial unit of respondent 5. The averments made in OA, rejoinder and written submissions are reiterated and pressed in support of the above stand of the applicants.
87. Per contra, on behalf of PSPCB, it is argued that due monitoring has been carried out from time to time, effective steps and action have been taken and there is no laxity on the part of PSPCB.
88. On behalf of respondent 5, it is not disputed that on several occasions, CTO was revoked and electric connections were disconnected but in the various appeals preferred by respondent 5, relief was granted and pursuant thereto industrial unit of respondent 5 functioned from time 73 to time. It is said that the order of PSPCB for revocation of CTO has not been breached by continuing to operate industry whenever otherwise direction was given by PSPCB.
89. From the rival submissions advanced before us, in our view, following substantial questions relating to environment have arisen requiring adjudication by this Tribunal:
(I) Whether respondent 5 has continuously violated environmental laws?
(II) If environmental laws and norms have been violated by respondent 5 and question I is answered against it, whether PSPCB has failed to take appropriate action against respondent 5?
(III) Whether respondent 5 has operated industrial unit despite revocation of CTO and has caused damage to environment?
(IV) If question III is answered against the respondent 5, what appropriate action/order need to be passed in this OA by Tribunal for protection of environment and its rejuvenation and restoration and also for prevention of violations, if any, on the part of respondent 5?
ISSUES I AND II:
90. Both the issues can be considered together.
91. The facts, discussed above, leave no manner of doubt that respondent 5 i.e., project proponent has miserably failed to comply with the provisions of environmental laws and norms strictly in accordance with law on various occasions. Statutory Regulators though have taken action of closure of industries from time to time but repeatedly has also 74 allowed project proponent to restore its functions which shows that a very casual approach has been adopted which is more contrary to what was necessary for protection of environment and has shown no leniency towards favourably respondent 5 who has consistently violated environmental laws and norms. Commencing from Report dated 01.01.2021, which was submitted by PSPCB, stating that on 29.09.2020, industrial site of respondent 5 was visited and a large number of violations were found which we have already referred to in detail in para 11 above.
For the above violations, letter dated 27.11.2020 was issued to PSPCL with direction to disconnect electric connection of respondent 5 with immediate effect so as to give effect to closure of industry. In view of the above, OA 938/2019 (supra) itself was disposed of by order dated 05.03.2021 with direction to PSPCB to ensure further action for compliance of environmental norms following due process of law. After disposal of OA, we find no occasion as to why electric connection of respondent 5 was restored on 09.04.2021 though there is no material on record to show that violations found during inspection dated 29.09.2020 were removed and respondent 5 was found compliant in respect to all aspects for maintaining environmental norms. Within one month thereafter, Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Regional Office, Amritsar issued order dated 10.05.2021 with directions under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and 31A of Air Act 1981, requiring PSPCL to disconnect electric connection of respondent 5 with immediate effect. An order for restoration of electric connection thereafter was issued on 17.08.2021. In continuation just about less than two months, authorities of PSPCB visited industrial site of respondent 5 on 13.10.2021 and found ETP non-functional and other violations. Again an order for disconnection of electric connection was issued but the same 75 was directed to be restored by order dated 04.04.2022. On 31.08.2022, there was a fire incident resulting in release of toxic fumes as a result whereof, closure order was issued on 28.10.2022 but in Appeal, Appellate Authority allowed operation of industrial unit by order dated 21.11.2022. At this stage, the present OA was filed in which Tribunal issued order on 10.08.2023, constituting a Joint Committee, requiring a factual Report therefrom. Joint Committee made inspection of the unit on 20.10.2023 and made observations showing violation of various environmental laws and norms on the part of respondent 5 which we have quoted in para 25 of the judgment above.
92. The above discussion shows that commencing from the proceedings in earlier OA 938/2019 (supra), respondent 5 is such a proponent who has been consistently found flouting environmental laws and norms in various ways.
93. In the inspections conducted between December 2019 to October 2020 which resulted in the Report dated 01.01.2021, various violations were noticed which we have already referred to in para 11 above. It shows that the whole factory was found spilled with yellow colour dye and owner of industrial unit did not cooperate with the inspection team. On the date of inspection made on 29.09.2020, industry was not found working in full strength and not even a single reactor was functioning. Inspection team also found that the industrial unit, though claimed to be zero discharge but actually discharging polluted liquor. Despite information of inspection, the unit owner did not cooperate with the inspection team by functioning the unit to its strength so as to allow the inspection team to evaluate the maximum resultant effect to find out whether there were more violations 76 or not. The above inspection resulted in issue of order dated 27.11.2020 under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 and 31A of Air Act 1981 for disconnection of electric supply and closure of the unit.
94. Non-compliance continued to core which further resulted in some adverse orders from the authorities of PSPCB against respondent 5. There was also a fire incident on 31.08.2022, resulting in release of toxic fumes in the industrial unit of respondent 5, on account whereof a closure order was issued on 28.10.2022.
95. However, subsequently, Appellate Authority allowed the operation of the unit to continue by order dated 21.11.2022.
96. In the present OA also, we find that Joint Committee constituted by Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2023 submitted Report dated 21.11.2023 stating that the unit was extracting ground water by installing bore well for industrial and domestic purposes but without obtaining requisite permission from Competent Authority i.e., CGWA; there was no adequate ventilation arrangement as well as fugitive emission control system; aeration tank of ETP was found operational but treatment units were found empty and dried; though the unit claimed that it was not generating any effluent but some effluent generated frequently in floor washing of the work area, cleaning and washing of reactor vessel and its floor enrouted to existing ETP for treatment but no logbook was maintained; unit has not adopted closed loop system for feeding of raw material into reaction vessel along with carry out the semi-finished product through open channel; on the date of inspection, ETP was not in operation and only aeration in MBBR-1 and MBBR-2 (Aeration Tank-I, Aeration Tank-II 2) were operational; unit did not maintain any record of the quantity of effluent 77 generation, treated effluent discharged and quantity of ETP sludge generated; several hazardous chemical were found stored in premises like Acetic acid, Sulphuric acid, Oxalic acid without valid registration/permission from Competent Authority Hazardous And Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'HOWMTM Rules 2016'); workers were not provided with personal protective equipments necessary for their health and safety, inadequate firefighting arrangements were found, drum and barrels as well as raw chemical were kept in open area; no authorisation was obtained under HOWMTM Rules 2016; no separate system for discharge of the storm water was provided; on-site /off-site emergency plan was prepared and over all housekeeping was found poor.
97. Besides above, reply of PSPCB also shows repeated violations, closure and power supply disconnection orders and restorations from 2020 till the date of filing of the present OA.
98. It is also evident from record that Appellate Authority has shown more concern in respect of functioning of unit instead of ensuring proper and effective compliance of environmental laws and norms on the part of respondent 5 and that is how, repeated orders were passed from time to time by Appellate Authority with the direction that it shall comply with all the laws and norms related to environment but no effective execution is visible on the part of respondent 5 in this regard. Respondent 5 has also been kept in observation by granting/validating consent some times for short period but the fact remains that in the last 4 years, there has been consistent violations on the part of respondent 5 on various occasions.
99. Written submissions filed by respondent 5 also show that even on 78 30.04.2024 when written submissions were filed, there were various violations for example, there was no authorisation under HOWMTM Rules 2016 and an application for consent/permission/authorisation was submitted by respondent 5 on 15.04.2024 which was pending. Further para 2 of written submission dated 30.04.2024 shows that consent was revoked by order dated 12.01.2024 but the unit continued to function despite revocation of consent. Show cause notice dated 20.03.2024 was also issued to respondent 5 for computation of environmental compensation but it does not appear that any final order has been passed till the matter was finally heard by this Tribunal. Obstructions on the part of owner or representatives of proponent in carrying out inspection by PSPCB official's teams is also reported but no strict and stringent action has been taken in this regard. We also find that in respect to the violations found by Joint Committee in its Report dated 21.11.2023, no effective action has been taken by PSPCB till date. With regard to violations noticed by Joint Committee as per Report dated 21.11.2023, in the reply dated 02.02.2024 submitted by respondent 5, we find that substantially irregulations/violations are not disputed but the explanation is that respondent 5 is taking action for rectification or removal of such violations.
100. In respect of extraction of ground water without permission from Competent Authority, reply dated 02.02.2024 of respondent 5 states that it had applied for grant of permission to CGWA for extraction of ground water and the application is pending. Pendency of an application does not mean that the permission is granted and so long as the permission is not granted, if the act of extraction of water continues on the part of proponent, it is clearly a violation of environmental laws and norms. 79
101. In regard to installation of flow meters, it is not disputed that only manually operated meters have been installed. Respondent 5 has explained that it is in the process of installation of electromagnetic flow meters.
102. Similarly, with regard to emergency plan based on hazard identification, risk assessment and disaster management, the stand of respondent 5 is that the unit is in the process of implementing the same and it will be done as early as possible.
103. Storage of hazardous materials like Acetic Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Oxalic Acid etc. is not disputed but the reply of respondent 5 is that the same is not meant for sale. Under the rules, mere storage of hazardous substance is impermissible unless permission of competent authority is obtained. Further, it is said that unit has approached the authorities for grant of NOC but it has not been granted so far. Copy of the request letter sent by the unit is dated 31.01.2024 which shows that on the date of inspection what was found by Joint Committee, that hazardous substances were stored without any authorisation from the Competent Authority, was correct, and there was no such authorisation on that date.
104. With regard to public liability insurance policy, reply of respondent 5 is that it had taken it on 05.12.2023 meaning thereby, on the date of inspection by Joint Committee and when report was submitted on 21.11.2023, no such policy was taken by proponent.
105. With regard to poor housekeeping, respondent 5 has said that it is getting the things improved and also taking steps for limiting/improving leakage and spillage in the manufacturing process. All the reply given by 80 respondent 5 in substance shows that the violations noted by Joint Committee as reported in report dated 21.11.2023, are substantially correct. On the date of inspection i.e., 20.10.2023 as also the date on which report of Joint Committee was submitted, respondent 5 was in violation on various aspects in respect of environmental laws and norms.
106. In this backdrop, we are of the view that action taken by PSPCB against respondent 5 is wholly inadequate, lacks detriment and a commitment to ensure compliance of environmental laws. It is a serious thing that Statutory Regulator constituted for ensuring compliance environmental laws has substantially failed in discharge of such duty and despite continuous violations found on the part of respondent 5 in the last four years, sometimes due to lack of stringent action on the part of Field Officers of PSPCB and sometimes due to extraordinary indulgence granted by Appellate Authority, favour has been shown to respondent 5 by allowing it to continue despite such violations on its part. Even when we heard the matter and enquired as to whether despite revocation of consent how the industry could continue to function, no effective reply was given by the concerned Authority. Not even adequate and appropriate environmental compensation has been imposed upon respondent 5 and even criminal prosecution has not been initiated.
107. We, therefore, answer Issues I and II formulated above in affirmative and against respondent 5 as also PSPCB and hold that respondent 5 has continuously violated environmental laws and PSPCB has also failed to take appropriate action against respondent 5 despite of such frequent, repeated and flagrant violations on the part of respondent
5. 81 ISSUE III:
108. As per Report-2023 of CGWB, Department of Water Resources, Ministry of Jal Shakti, out of total 153 assessment units in State of Punjab, 117 are in the category of 'Over-exploited'. The entire Amritsar having eight blocks falls in the category of 'over-exploited'. Total annual ground water recharge of State has been assessed as 18.84 bcm and annual extractable ground water resource as 16.98 bcm. Annual ground water extraction is 27.8 bcm and stage of ground water extraction is 163.76%.
Over extracted category means extraction of ground water is more than its recharge capacity or actual recharge. In such circumstances, where ground water is in scarcity, no indiscrete extraction of ground water is permissible as it is bound to damage hydrological eco-system of the area concerned. Therefore, extraction of ground water by respondent 5 without any permission of Competent Authority is causing serious damage to environment.
109. We find that respondent 5, as per information given in public domain, is manufacturer of various textile basic dyes and lumps, established in 1996. Its production capacity is about 2500 MT annually. The products include Malachite Green Basic Dye Powder which is commercially known as Basic Green 4; Basic Methyl Violet Crystal; Auramine O Basic Yellow 2 which is also known commercially as Basic Yellow 2; Basic Magenta Dye Powder commercially known as Violet 14; Basic Magenta Lumps, Blue Methylene Dye Powder; Rhodamine B Dye Powder; Basic Black Textile Dye Powder etc. These products are commonly used in textile, paper and paint industries.
110. Manufacturing process of Malachite Green Basic Dye is condensing 82 of benzaldehyde and diemethylaniline which results in Leuco Malachite Green. This is oxidized with hydrochloride acid which is Malachite Green. The process of other products is more or less similar. We have given one illustration to show that process of manufacturing involves use of hazardous substances. Spill over of this products/material on the floor, when washed or when containers are washed, result in discharge of effluent having traces of dyes and hazardous substances.
111. As we have noticed that during inspection, ETP was not found functional, meaning thereby, hazardous effluent was being discharged causing damage to environment. We have also seen that the unit has operated time and again despite closure orders or revocation of consent.
112. In the circumstances, we answer issue III in affirmative and against respondent 5.
ISSUE IV
113. Having answered issues I, II and III against respondent 5, it is clear that respondent 5 has violated environmental laws, caused damage to environment and run its unit in violation of environmental laws and has also violated environmental laws in various aspects.
114. An industrial establishment contributes to national production of goods, services and also to the public revenue, therefore, all efforts should be made so that its functioning may not be hampered or obstructed and it may continue to run to achieve its target of production of goods. However, if such industry is undertaking in the course of its functioning, is being managed in such a way that it is causing damage to environment and proper steps for protection of environment have not been taken by the 83 persons responsible for its management, such industrial establishment cannot be allowed to function in such a manner so as to cause detriment to environment.
115. In the course of running of an industrial establishment and simultaneous protection of environment, principle of law recognised in jurisprudence of environmental laws is the principle of sustainable development which means that a balance should maintained.
116. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others, (2022) 9 SCC 306, Supreme Court in its order dated 09.05.2022 in para 16 observed that adherence to the principle of "sustainable development"
is a constitutional requirement. While applying the principle of sustainable development, one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It was further held that it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on 'intergenerational equity'. While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments.
117. In Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., (2022) 11 SCC 1, in para 520 of the judgment, Supreme Court said that the expression "sustainable development" incorporates a wide meaning within its fold. It contemplates that development ought to be sustainable with the idea of preservation of natural environment for present and future 84 generations. It would not be without significance to note that sustainable development is indeed a principle of development - it posits controlled development. The primary requirement underlying this principle is to ensure that every development work is sustainable; and this requirement of sustainability demands that the first attempt of every agency enforcing environmental rule of law in the country ought to be to alleviate environmental concerns by proper mitigating measures. Court further said that right to development is intrinsically connected to the preservance of a dignified life. It is not limited to the idea of infrastructural development, rather, it entails human development as the basis of all development. The jurisprudence in environmental matters must acknowledge that there is immense inter-dependence between right to development and right to natural environment.
118. It is however, also well recognised that industrial unit cannot function without causing serious damage to environment, in such a case, an approach necessary for protection of environment must be adopted.
Section 20 of NGT Act 2010 requires Tribunal to function by application of principle of 'sustainable development' and 'precautionary principle'.
Application of precautionary principle would justify a direction for non-
functioning of such an industrial establishment, which is causing damage to environment unless it mend its ways in such a manner so as not to cause any substantial damage to environment. Court in such matter where environment damage is unavoidable, must follow 'doctrine of precautionary principle' and restrain functioning of such industrial establishment or any other establishment, which is likely to cause damage to environment due to its manner and ways of functioning. Doctrine of precautionary principle has been explained by Supreme Court in a catena 85 of authorities.
119. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India & Others (1996) 5 SCC 647, Court held that 'precautionary principle' is an essential feature of 'sustainable development'. In para 11 of the judgment, Supreme Court explained precautionary principle stating that in environmental measures State Government and Statutory Authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.
120. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, Court observed that precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion.
121. In Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy vs. Union of India, (2005) 10 SCC 510, Court said that precautionary principle is part of Indian jurisprudence, arising from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution.
122. In Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai vs. In Defence of Environment & Animals, (2020) 10 SCC 589, relying on earlier judgments, Court held that 'precautionary principle' has been accepted as a part of the law of our land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.86
Precautionary principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
123. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401, while considering the question as to whether Tribunal has suo-moto jurisdiction to take cognizance of an issue involving environmental protection, Court said that Tribunal is itself required to carry out preventive and protected measures as well as hold governmental and private authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests.
124. In Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2022) 11 SCC 493, Court said in para 34 of the judgment as under:
"The precautionary principle requires the State to act in advance to prevent environmental harm from taking place, rather than by adopting measures once the harm has taken place."
125. Similarly, Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority (supra), in para 524, Court said that precautionary principle duly mandates that all agencies of the State, including Courts, must make their best endeavour to ensure that precaution is instilled in the process of development. Duly recognising the above law laid down by Supreme Court, in NGT Act, 2010 has provided in Section 20 that Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision or award, apply principle of 'sustainable development', 'precautionary principle' and 'polluter pays' principle. Where pollution is being caused by a violator, a strict liability principle has to be applied and the violator must be held liable to compensate, such harm was recognised by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR1987SC1086 (Sodium gas leak case) therein Supreme Court said 87 that an enterprise must be absolutely held liable to compensate for harm it has caused and it should be not be answered to say that it has taken all reasonable care. Court also observed that larger and most and more prosperous enterprise, greater must be the amount of compensation payable for the harm caused on account of the activity being carried on by the industry. Protection of environment from its degradation and providing clean and healthy environment is the Constitutional obligation of the State and a corresponding fundamental right of the citizens in part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
126. The above principles are recognised as part of jurisprudence of environmental laws since right of clean and hygienic environment has been held to be a Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution.
127. In Virendra Gaur vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577, Court said that word "environment" is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance". It is duty of State and every individual to maintain hygienic environment. State in particular has duty to shed its extravagant unguided sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance in hygienic environment. Further Court held, "Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed, any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article
21."
88
128. Court also held that hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment. Court further said, "Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the Municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the manmade and the natural environment."
129. It is in this backdrop, if anyone is causing damage to environment, the doctrine of principle of 'Polluter Pays' has been recognised so as to held such person liable to pay for remediation of such damaged environment.
130. With regard to application of 'Polluter Pays', it is well settled that a person who has caused damage to environment, must pay environmental compensation for rejuvenation, restoration and remediation of damaged environment.
131. 'Polluter Pays' principle means absolute liability for harm to the environment, not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of 'sustainable development'. As such, polluter is liable to pay cost to the individual sufferers as well as cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
132. 'Polluter Pays' principle was also considered in detail in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212. Certain industries producing assets were dumping their waste. Even untreated waste water was allowed to flow freely polluting atmosphere and sub-terrain supply of water which ultimately caused darkening and dirtiness of wells and the streams water rendering it unfit for human 89 consumption. Certain environmentalists' organizations broadly alleging severe damage to villager's health, filed a Writ petition as PIL in 1989 before Supreme Court. By that time, some of the units were already closed. Referring to Article 48-A in Directive Principles of State Policy and 51-A in the Fundamental duties of citizens, Supreme Court observed that said provisions say that State shall endeavour to protect and improve environment and to safeguard forest and wildlife of the country. One of the fundamental duties of citizens is to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creature. Where a Proponent has established its commercial unit and operate contrary to law flouting norms provided by law, Statutory Regulator is bound to act and if it fails, a judicial forum can direct it to act in accordance with law. Referring to Oleum Gas leak case, i.e., M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Court observed in para 58 that the constitution bench held that enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. Hazardous or inherently harmful activities for private profits can be tolerated only on the condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not.
133. Court also referred to its earlier decision in Indian Council for Enviro Legal action vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 77, wherein concerned Pollution Control Board identified about 22 industries responsible for causing pollution by discharge of their effluent and a direction was issued by Court observing that they were responsible to 90 compensate the farmers. It was the duty of State Government to ensure that this amount was recovered from the industries and paid to the farmers. In para 67 of the judgment, Court said that the question of liability of respondent units to defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into from another angle which has now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle, for example, 'Polluter Pays' principle. On this aspect, Court further observed as under:
"67. ...The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The 'Polluter Pays' principle was promoted by the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialized society. Since then, there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the polluter pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactory agreed.
Despite the difficulties inherent in defining the principle, the European Community accepted it as a fundamental part of its strategy on environmental matters, and it has been one of the underlying principles of the four Community Action Programmes on the Environment. The current Fourth Action Programme ([1987] OJC 328/1) makes it clear that the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisances must in principle be borne by the polluter', and the polluter pays principle has now been incorporated into the European Community Treaty as part of the new Articles on the environment which were introduced by the Single European Act of 1986. Article 130-R(2) of the Treaty states that environmental considerations are to play a part in all the policies of the Community, and that action is to be based on three principles: the need for preventative action; the need for environmental damage to be rectified at source; and that the polluter should pay."91
134. Court further said that according to the above principle of 'Polluter Pays', responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. Sections 3 and 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empower Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this principle. Court further said:
"...In all the circumstances of the case, we think it appropriate that the task of determining the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures, its recovery/realisation and the task of undertaking the remedial measures is placed upon the Central Government in the light of the provisions of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986. It is, of course, open to the Central Government to take the help and assistance of State Government, R.P.C.B. or such other agency or authority, as they think fit."
135. The above principle has been followed in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (supra). In para 25, direction no. 2 reads as under:
2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement the "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays"
principle. The authority shall, with the help of expert opinion and after giving opportunity to the concerned polluters assess the loss to the ecology/environment in the affected areas and shall also identify the individuals/families who have suffered because of the pollution and shall assess the compensation to be paid to the said individuals/families. The authority shall further determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluters as cost of reversing the damaged environment. The authority shall lay down just and fair procedure for completing the exercise.
136. In Bittu Sehgal and Another vs Union of India & Others, (2001) 9 SCC 181, referring the earlier judgments, Supreme Court has said that 'Precautionary Principle' and 'Polluter Pays Principle' have been accepted as part of the law of the land.
137. In Research Foundation for Science vs. Union of India & Ors., 92 (2005) 13 SCC 186, in para 26 and 29, Court, on 'Polluter Pays' principle, has said as under:
"26. The liability of the importers to pay the amounts to be spent for destroying the goods in question cannot be doubted on applicability of precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle. These principles are part of the environmental law of India. There is constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. In order to fulfill the constitutional mandate various legislations have been enacted with attempt to solve the problem of environmental degradation.
29. The polluter-pays principle basically means that the producer of goods or other items should be responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the process causes. This includes environmental cost as well as direct cost to the people or property, it also covers cost incurred in avoiding pollution and not just those related to remedying any damage. It will include full environmental cost and not just those which are immediately tangible. The principle also does not mean that the polluter can pollute and pay for it. The nature and extent of cost and the circumstances in which the principle will apply may differ from case to case."
138. In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Others, (2006) 6 SCC 371, principle of 'Polluter Pays' has been explained in detail referring to the earlier judgments in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (supra) and Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum (supra).
139. The above discussion makes it clear that since respondent 5 is running its industrial establishment in such a manner so as to violate environmental laws and norms, and hence an order of closure of unit till all violations are removed, would be justified by application of precautionary principle as contemplated under Section 20 of NGT Act 2010.
140. Violation of environmental laws is also an offence. In our view, 93 respondent 5 is also liable to face punitive action. Regulatory Authority must initiate criminal prosecution for past violations as well as continued violations, as the case may be, by lodging criminal complaints under the provisions of Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and EP Act 1986.
141. By application of principle of 'Polluter Pays', respondent 5 is also liable to pay environmental compensation.
142. However, at this stage, one of the questions which may arise is what should be the quantum of environmental compensation and what methodology should be adopted and what are the relevant factors necessary to consider for computation of environmental compensation.
143. The elements of nature like air, water, light and soil in materialistic manner may not be priced appropriately and adequately. Most of the time, whenever price is determined, it may be extremely low or highly exorbitant meaning thereby disproportionate. Still, since some of the assets of nature are marketable, on that basis price may be determined but when such elements are damaged or degraded, restoration thereof, in effect is priceless. Many a times, it may be almost impracticable and improbable to recover and remediate damaged environment to its position as it was. Moreover, its cost might be very high. It also cannot be doubted that once there is a pollution or damage to environment, it would affect adversely not only the environment but also inhabitants and all biological organisms. Damage is there, only degree may differ whether to the environment or to the inhabitants and other organisms. To find out simultaneously degree of damage and to ascertain the same in many cases may not be possible or practicable with mathematical precision. For example, a polluted air causes respiratory diseases but the people do not 94 get infected and starts reflection of the disease immediately but it takes some time. The time taken in reflection of injury on the person or body also differs from person to person depending upon his immunity and other health conditions. In some cases, damage to environment i.e., air pollution may be fatal to a person who already has respiratory problem. For some a minor inconvenience, minor injury to others, and some may not suffer to the extent of showing symptoms of any diseases at all. When we talk of environmental compensation for causing degradation to environment and for its restoration or remediation, it is not a formal or casual or symbolic amount which is required to be levied upon the violator. It is substantive and adequate amount which must be levied for restoration of environment. CPCB in determining values of fixed quotients and rupees etc., has been very lenient as if only symbolically violator is to be held liable and it must pay a petty amount.
144. Nature is extremely precious. It is difficult to price elements of nature like light, Oxygen (air), water in different forms like rain, snow, vapour etc. When nature is exploited beyond carrying capacity, results are harmful and dangerous. People do not understand the value of what nature has given free. Recently, in COVID-19 Wave-II, scarcity of Oxygen proved its worth. In dreadful second phase of the above pandemic, any amount offered, in some cases, could not save life for want of Oxygen. Further, damage to environment, sometimes do not reflect in individuals immediately and may take time but injury is there. In such cases, process of determination of compensation may be different.
145. The amount of environmental compensation is needed for remediation and restoration of damaged environment; enough to be 95 deterrent, to provide adequate compensation where inhabitants are affected adversely and where violator has proceeded in violation of environmental laws relating to consents, clearances, permissions etc., to penalize him for such violation to prove to be a deterrent to him and others.
146. Environmental compensation is not a kind of fee which may result in profiteering to violators and after adjusting a nominal amount of environmental compensation, a violator may find it profitable to continue with such violations. The objective of environmental compensation is that not only the loss and damage already caused, is made to recover and restore but also in future, the said violator may not repeat the kind of violation already committed and others also have a fear of not doing the same else similar liability may be enforced upon them. Unless amount of compensation is more than maximum permissible profit arising from violation, the purpose of environmental compensation would always stand defeated.
147. Loss caused to surroundings of the environment, may also include flora-fauna and human beings.
148. In fact, quantum of environmental compensation should have nexus with State's efforts for protection and preservation of environment and control of pollution. Compensation regime must be a deterrent to violators and incentivize eco-friendly proponents. No one should get profited by violating environmental laws and community should also not suffer for violation of environmental norms by defaulting proponents. There is no reason, if beside the aspects noticed above, the computation process also incorporates the elements of inflation, quality of life, and economic prosperity.
96
149. NGT Act 2010 nowhere makes any provision as to how environmental compensation is to be computed.
150. The question of assessment of environmental compensation includes the principles/factors/aspects, necessary to be considered for computing/assessing/determining environmental compensation. Besides judicial precedents, we find little assistance from Statute. Section 15 of NGT Act 2010 talks of relief of compensation and restitution. It confers wide powers on this Tribunal to grant relief by awarding compensation for the loss suffered by individual(s) and/or for damage caused to environment. Section 15 reads as under:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution-(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide-
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.
(2) The relief and Compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section of (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the' applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.97
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may, be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority.
151. Sub-section 1 of Section 15 enables Tribunal to make an order providing relief and compensation to (i) the victims of pollution, (ii) other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I.
152. Tribunal is also conferred power to pass an order providing relief for restitution of property damaged. Section 15(1)(c) enables Tribunal to pass an order providing relief for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as Tribunal may think fit. Section 15 sub-section 4 says that Tribunal may divide compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedules II, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment so as to provide compensation or relief, (i) to the claimants and (ii) for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
153. Schedule II of NGT Act 2010 gives a list of heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be granted. It has 14 heads in total out of which items (a) to (f), (l), (m) and (n) relate to loss, damage etc. sustained to the person or individual or their property. Items (i) to (k) relate to harm, damage, destruction etc. of environment or environmental system including soil, air, water, land, and eco-system. Items (i) to (k) of Schedule 98 II of NGT Act 2010 are as under:
"(i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna;
(j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards;
(k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;"
154. Items (g) and (h) relate to expense and cost incurred by State in providing relief to affected person; and loss caused in connection with activity causing damage.
155. The damage to environment covers a very wide variety of nature as is evident from definition of environment under Section 2(c) which is inclusive and says; 'environment includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property'.
156. Even Rules framed under NGT Act 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of EC is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation. Computation of environmental compensation may involve some degree of subjectivity but broadly it must be based on objective considerations as it saddles financial liability upon the violator. 99
157. Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.
158. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organizations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
159. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the 100 community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
160. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partial restoration/remediation/rejuvenation.
161. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental restoration/remediation/rejuvenation should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive". The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
162. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human- health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human- health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
101
163. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and further comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
164. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied. As the term suggest, compensation means a return for loss or damage sustained. Therefore, it must always be just and not based on a whim or capricious.
165. In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation. In some cases, a lump sum amount has been imposed.
166. In an article, 'the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics' by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') can be 102 applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environmental pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z), where z denotes the pollution level. Further, clean- up cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation.
167. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and this principle must also be given due consideration and be taken care.
168. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'sustainable development', 'precautionary approach' and 'polluter pays', etc. In such circumstances, it is the ultimate responsibility of Court's to assess and compute 103 environmental compensation, rationally.
169. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.
170. This Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2018 passed in OA 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others observed that "CPCB may also assess and recover compensation for damage to the environment and said fund may be kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment".
171. Pursuant thereto, CPCB published a Report on 15.07.2019 suggesting methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment.
172. The above guidelines may be followed wherever applicable to the facts of the case for the purpose of computation of environmental compensation.
104
173. In some cases, compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example: (i) in Ajay Kumar Negi vs Union of India, OA No. 183/2013, Rs.5 Crores was imposed. (ii) In Naim Shariff vs M/s Das Offshore Application no. 15(THC) of 2016, Rs.25 Crores was imposed (iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India, Rs. 25 Crores was imposed.
174. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (2014) 6 SCC 590, Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2013) 8 SCC 209 and held that ten per cent of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was an appropriate compensation given that mining could not completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a special purpose vehicle, i.e., "Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund" for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.
175. In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257, Tribunal imposed Rs.195 Crores compensation since construction project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it Rs.100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher. Supreme Court also upheld Rs. 5 Crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost.
176. The judgment in Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257 shows that in construction projects, 105 environmental compensation may be computed with a reference to the project cost and upto 10% of the project cost.
177. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others, (2019) 18 SCC 494, Supreme Court affirmed imposition of environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent. Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where PP had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by PP and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of PP.
178. On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, recently Supreme Court in Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SLP (Civil) No. 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. 'Polluter Pays' principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of "sustainable development" and as 106 such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
179. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR1987SC1086 (Sodium gas leak case), issue of gas leak in a chemical factory and its repercussions came to be considered. Court expanded the doctrine of liability by modifying 'strict liability' principle enshrined in Rylands v. Fletcher to 'absolute liability; and said, "enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas, poses an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken-the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be not answer to the enterprise to say that it has taken all reasonable care....".
180. Court also said that larger and more prosperous enterprise, greater must be the amount of compensation payable for the harm caused on account of the activity being carried on by the industry.
181. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996)3SCC212, Court said that once activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, a person carrying on such activity is liable to make good, the loss, caused to any other person, by his activity, irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on. It was held that polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the 107 harm caused by them to the people in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water.
182. In Deepak Nitride Limited vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2004) 6 SCC 402, Supreme Court said that for computation of environmental compensation, percentage of turn over may be a proper measure because the method to be adopted for awarding damages and the basis of principle of 'Polluter Pays' has got to be practicable simple and easy in application.
183. In view of the above discussion, in our view, since respondent 5 is an industrial establishment, therefore, its annual turnover may be taken as basis for imposition of environmental compensation and upto 10% of the total annual turnover, environmental compensation may be computed.
184. Respondent 5 has not disclosed its annual turnover. Our attention was drawn to CTO dated 27.06.2023 at page 315 of paper book, wherein capital investment of the industry has been shown as Rs.64.5418 lakhs. Capital investment however, does not show correct picture of the turn over.
185. There is a document on public domain which shows annual turnover of M/s. Amar Color Chem India is Rs.10 to 25 Crores. However, it does not show as to which financial year its current turn over has been referred and moreover it is in a wide range.
186. In any case, since we do not have the entire information on this aspect, we take from the said document that minimum turnover is Rs. 10 Crores per annum. If 5% of the said turnover is computed towards environmental compensation, it comes to Rs.50 lakhs per annum. We, therefore, find it appropriate to impose an interim environmental 108 compensation of Rs. one Crore for two years i.e., 2022-23 and 2023-24. Final compensation shall be determined by PSPCB after collecting relevant informations from all the concerned stakeholders including respondent 5.
187. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of this OA with the following directions:
(i) Respondent 5 shall pay an interim environmental compensation of Rs. One Crore to PSPCB within two months.
(ii) Final compensation shall be determined by PSPCB for past violations in the light of the observations made above and after collecting entire informations and giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties including respondent 5, within three months.
(iii) Amount of interim environmental compensation shall be adjusted against the final quantum of environmental compensation and balance amount shall be dealt with, i.e., refunded/recovered, as the case may be, accordingly.
(iv) Environmental compensation after realization shall be used for various environmental management programs in the area involving District Administration and Forest Department. An Action Plan need to be prepared for the environmental management activities, time line and Budget estimate for each action. For preparation of environmental management plan/programme, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising CPCB, PSPCB and Deputy Commissioner, 109 Amritsar who shall prepare a plan within three months and execute the same within next six months.
(v) PSPCB shall take punitive action against respondent 5 by initiating criminal prosecution in accordance with law under relevant environmental laws, as discussed above, within two months.
(vi) We constitute a High Powered Committee comprising Regional Director, MoEF&CC, Chandigarh, CPCB and PSPCB. CPCB shall be the Nodal agency for coordination and compliance.
The above Committee shall visit the industrial site of respondent 5, inspect the same and if finds any violation of environmental laws and norms, submit Report to Member Secretary, PSPCB whereupon appropriate action for closure of the industry shall be taken by PSPCB and such closure shall continue till all the violation are removed by respondent 5.
(vii) If any further violation is found, environmental compensation shall be separately assessed and computed against respondent 5, and recovered, by PSPCB.
(viii) Compliance Reports shall be submitted by PSPCB and Joint Committee, in respect of directions made above, with Registrar General of this Tribunal who may place the matter before Bench, if any further order is found necessary.
188. Copy of the order be forwarded to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Environment Secretary, Department of Environment, State of 110 Punjab, CPCB, Regional Director, MoEF&CC, Chandigarh, Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and PSPCB for information and compliance.
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER July 05, 2024 Original Application No.470/2023 R 111