National Green Tribunal
K Govindasamy vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 17 October, 2024
Item No.2:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024.
(Through Video Conference)
Appeal No.20 of 2023 (SZ) &
I.A. No.41 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
K. Govindasamy
Proprietor
M/s. Govindasamy Poultry Farm
S.F. No.249/2, Kanakankadu,
Kottapalayam, Periyamani Village,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairperson
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
No.100, Mount Salai,
Guindy, Chennai - 32.
2. The District Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Collectorate Campus,
Near Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation
Namakkal - 637 003.
3. The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO (Distribution Circle)
Namakkal District.
...Respondent(s)
Kaliyannan
Aged 70 years,
S/o. Ramasamy Gounder,
Kottapalayam, Periyamanali Post,
Thiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
...Proposed Respondent
For Appellant (s): Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar.
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Satha Jith for R1 & R2.
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi represented
Mr. S.T. Raja for R3.
M/s. S. Muthukrishnan, M. Sridhar,
G.R. Sreemagal & N. Narayanaswamy - I.A.
Page 1 of 9
Judgment Reserved on: 20th September, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.
1. The poultry farm in question has challenged the order dated 04.09.2023 vide Proceedings No. TNPCB/T1/F.02901/KMP/Closure/Water/2023-1 of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) issuing direction for closure and disconnection of power supply under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
2. The appellant poultry farm was initially established in November 2020 with a capacity of 10,000 birds before the advent of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines which was originally issued in the year 2021 and was revised in January 2022.
3. A complaint was given by one Kaliyannan on 10.08.2022 to the TNPCB regarding the establishment of a new poultry farm by the appellant herein without obtaining NOC. As there was no response, the said Kaliyannan filed W.P. No.26855 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras seeking a direction to the official respondents, including the TNPCB to take action against the 6th Respondent therein/appellant herein based on of the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2022 regarding the establishment of new poultry farm without obtaining appropriate approvals.
4. In the said writ petition, the TNPCB had represented that the Board officials had inspected the poultry farm of the appellant herein viz., K. Govindasamy on 10.11.2022 and reported that the same has been operating without consent Page 2 of 9 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The notice was also issued to the unit on 10.11.2022 seeking an explanation. As the TNPCB had already taken action, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the TNPCB to pursue the action taken to bring it to a logical conclusion. The said order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 25.11.2022.
5. As the order dated 25.11.2022 in W.P. No.26855 of 2022 was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed by Kaliyannan in Cont. Petition No.888 of 2023. In the said contempt petition, it was represented by the TNPCB that the power supply had been disconnected. Therefore, recording the same, the contempt petition was closed on 08.09.2023.
6. The TNPCB, vide letter dated 22.12.2022, addressed a letter to the appellant unit to attend the personal hearing on 27.12.2022. The said letter was returned to the 2nd Respondent with an endorsement of „Door Locked‟. Thereafter, intimation was given about the scheduled personal hearing over the phone on 27.12.2022. However, the appellant did not attend the personal hearing. Later, the appellant unit was inspected by the Board officials on 27.01.2023 and 10.02.2023, based on which, a direction was issued on 09.08.2023 under Section 31 A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, calling upon the appellant unit to shift all the birds to any other poultry farm within a period of one week and directed the unit to take measures or steps to comply with the CPCB Guidelines for Poultry Farms of January 2022 immediately and that the unit shall resume its operation after getting consent from the TNPCB. After the directions were issued on 21st & 22nd August, the TNPCB inspected the premises only to note that the directions were not complied with. Hence, the impugned order was issued for the closure of the poultry unit.
7. According to the appellant, the said order is vague and has not specifically stated which part of the guidelines was not complied with. It is argued that the CPCB guidelines apply Page 3 of 9 only to certain farms which handled more than 25,000 birds, whereas, in the instant case, the appellant had been handling only 20,000 birds in a single location.
8. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the direction was originally given by the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi on 10.12.2021 in Gauri Maulekhi Vs. Union of India and Ors. [O.A. No.320 of 2021 (PB)], directing that poultry farms handling above 5,000 birds at a single location shall also obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2480 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023. Therefore, it was stated that the guidelines of the CPCB, which is the basis for the issuance of the impugned order, are not applicable to the instant case, since the appellant is having only 20,000 birds and hence, the closure order is liable to be set aside.
9. As mentioned earlier, the procedure by the TNPCB started when there was a complaint made by one Kaliyannan, which resulted in a writ petition and later by contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The TNPCB had been inspecting regularly and the inspections revealed numerous violations of the guidelines, resulting in the show cause notice dated 10.11.2022. Despite giving multiple opportunities to address the violations, the appellant failed to respond to the same and did not rectify the identified non-compliances.
10. The show cause notice has specifically mentioned that the poultry farm was having 20,000 birds for egg production and has constructed the additional building and other facilities to increase the birds from 10,000 to 20,000 Nos. without obtaining the consent of the Board. It was also pointed out about the fencing and also the earthen pits excavated for the burial of dead birds, not as specified in the guidelines. It was also observed that the unit had not constructed the base with stone base slabs or concrete or impermeable compact clay for littering of poultry waste. Further, the show cause notice mentioned that the Page 4 of 9 poultry litter waste is being disposed of through a third party for manure purposes and the records for the disposal of the poultry litter generated from the poultry farm are not maintained and shown to the authorities.
11. In response to the same, on 16.11.2022, the appellant had given a reply stating that only when the poultry farm is handling above 25,000 birds in a single location will have to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate. Therefore, the said criteria is not applicable to the appellant unit which is having 20,000 birds. Regarding the construction of additional buildings and other facilities to increase the number of birds from 10,000 to 20,000, there is no specific denial excepting to state that the order of the National Green Tribunal will take effect from 01.01.2023 only.
12. The CPCB guidelines issued in January 2022 apply to PAN India and refer to the poultry farming process, meat production, and classification of the poultry farms in terms of number of birds, etc. The environmental issues and current practices to address the said issues in poultry farms is dealt with in Clause 5.0 of the Guidelines.
13. The said CPCB guidelines mandate the control of gaseous emission particularly, Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulphide, which are common by-products of poultry farming. The guidelines further emphasize the need to minimize the odour through proper ventilation and waste management. The TNPCB during the inspection had observed pervasive odour at the farm site indicating the failure to implement the basic emission control measures. This aspect was corroborated by the complaints from the other residents, which was already dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
14. The unit also failed to protect the manure from runoff and pest infestation. According to the CPCB Guidelines, the manure must be adequately protected from runoff water and infestation by pests such as insects and rodents. The Board had observed that the appellant's farm lacks in mechanism to prevent runoff of any contamination or pest infestation posing an Page 5 of 9 environmental threat, particularly, concerning the contamination of nearby water sources and the spread of disease vectors. Such negligence is a violation of the environment safety protocol prescribed by the CPCB.
15. The unit is also deficient in Solid Waste Management, though the guidelines specifically required the poultry farms to implement the system for properly storing and disposing of manure, including the use of raised platforms or composting facilities. The inspection report of the TNPCB reveals that the farm was collecting manure directly on the ground surface without any provision for proper storage or processing.
16. The TNPCB has also observed the improper disposal of dead birds, which posed an environmental and health risk. As per the guidelines, the dead birds must be disposed of in a manner that prevents contamination of water sources with proper composting or incineration facilities to be maintained at the farm. The inspections done by the Board officials revealed that the appellant had failed to establish such facilities and there were no adequate measures in place for the safe disposal of carcases. The unit also lacked a composting facility which is mandatory under the guidelines for manure disposal.
17. Regarding inadequate waste water management, the inspections by the TNPCB reveal stagnant water in the manure drop zone which is a clear breach of the requirement viz., ensuring that the water from drinking devices does not spill or stagnant in the area where the manure or litter are collected. The presence of stagnant water not only exacerbates the odour problem but also promotes the breeding of pests such as mosquitoes, creating additional health risks.
18. The unit also lacked in control measures for flies and rodents, which is to be done through proper sanitation, ventilation and immediate disposal of waste materials. The TNPCB observed an infestation of the pests, as there was no evidence that the appellant unit had implemented any pest control measures.
Page 6 of 919. Finally, regarding the siting criteria, in the show cause notice dated 10.11.2022, the TNPCB specifically stated that the appellant unit had constructed additional buildings and other facilities to increase the number of birds from 10,000 to 20,000 without obtaining the consent of the Board. In their reply, the appellant simply stated that since their unit was established prior to the issuance of the guidelines, the need for obtaining the consent of the Board does not arise and consequently that the siting criteria is not applicable to their unit.
20. The CPCB Guidelines have been issued making them applicable to poultry farms handling above 1,00,000 No. of birds. However, in Original Application No.681 of 2017, the National Green Tribunal issued a direction on 16.09.2020 to the CPCB to enforce the consent mechanism under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 after 01.01.2021 for all poultry farms above 5,000 birds in the same manner as is being done for farms having more than 1,00,000 birds. Till then, even without such a consent mechanism, the SPCBs/PCCs may strictly enforce the environmental norms and take appropriate remedial action against any violation of water, air and soil standards statutorily laid down.
21. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the National Green Tribunal passed the following order on 10.12.2021 in Original Application No.320 of 2021:-
"... Accordingly, we direct that while the impugned guidelines be immediately enforced, all poultry farms above 5,000 birds will also be covered by the said guidelines latest from 01.01.2023. The siting criteria should apply to all the consents/renewals hereafter for the above size of the poultry farms. CPCB may issue revised guidelines to all the State PCBs/PCCs in terms of the above order within one month."
22. During the course of the hearings, the learned counsel appearing for the TNPCB conceded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had granted a stay on the orders of the National Green Tribunal with reference to the consent mechanism and contended that though the requirement of the consent has Page 7 of 9 been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the need for enforcement of the environmental norms was not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
23. Therefore, the TNPCB is very much within its right to enforce the environmental norms indicated in the CPCB Guidelines, which have been mentioned in Clause (5) and (6) of the CPCB Guidelines. However, the National Green Tribunal has directed that the siting criteria should apply to all the consents/renewals hereafter for the above size of the poultry farms (i.e. exceeding 5,000 birds). Therefore, the applicability of the siting criteria is linked to consent to be granted by the TNPCB which has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. The TNPCB, only after multiple inspections, issued a show cause notice on 10.11.2022, affording an opportunity to the appellant to respond and rectify the violations. The appellant failed to attend the personal hearing, despite being informed both by letter and telephone. The appellant unit's continued disregard for regulatory oversight and non-compliance with the directives culminated in the closure notice being issued in September 2023. Despite the issuance of the closure notice and clear direction to shift the operations and bring the appellant unit into compliance, the TNPCB only found that the unit had not taken any corrective measures.
25. Therefore, the appellant's failure to comply with the CPCB Guidelines while expanding the size of the unit despite ample opportunities to do so leaves no alternative but to enforce the closure. The violations outlined above are serious in nature involving improper waste management, lack of emission control, failure to prevent pollution of surrounding areas, etc. The appellant's repeated failure to comply with the critical environmental guidelines, ignoring the opportunity of a personal hearing and failing to attend the personal hearing go to show the appellant's utter disregard for the law. Therefore, the TNPCB issued the impugned closure notice in order to prevent further harm to the environment.
Page 8 of 926. From the above facts and considering the conduct of the appellant unit, issuance of the closure notice by the TNCPB has to be upheld and the appellant's operation should remain suspended until full compliance with the CPCB guidelines relating to environmental norms is achieved.
27. In the result, (I) The appellant is directed to comply with the directives issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board with reference to the environmental norms listed in Clause 5 and 6 of the CPCB Guidelines within a period of 4 (Four) weeks, during which period, the interim protection granted by this Tribunal on 12.09.2023 only to restore the power supply will continue.
(II) It is open to the appellant to comply with the directions relating to environmental norms and report compliance to the TNPCB before the time granted in this order.
(III) If the directions of the TNPCB relating to environmental norms are not complied with by the appellant, the interim protection given by this Tribunal would automatically cease to operate.
28. The interlocutory application [I.A. No.41 of 2024 (SZ)] for impleadment is rejected.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.20/2023 (SZ) & I.A. No.41/2024 (SZ) 17th October, 2024. Mn.
Page 9 of 9