National Green Tribunal
Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar ... vs Union Of India on 29 September, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.04: Court No: 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 88 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar Nala Sangam
(Registered under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu
Societies Act, in SI. No. 205 of 2015 dated 26.06.2015)
Represented by its President,
M.R. Thiyagarajan,
S/o Late C. Rajalingam,
Office at No. 48 East Madha Church Street,
Royapuram, Chennai - 600 -013. ....Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh,
New Delhi - 110 003. ...Respondent(s)
Date of Judgment: 29.09.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanly Hebzon Singh
For Respondent(s): Mr. G. M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3
Mr. A. Ramesh Kumar for R4
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment. Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stands disposed of.
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M.
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M.
O.A. No. 88/2020(SZ)
29.09.2022. Sr.
Item No.04: Court No: 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 88 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar,
Meenavar Nala Sangam
(Registered under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu
Societies Act, in SI. No. 205 of 2015 dated 26.06.2015) Represented by its President, M.R. Thiyagarajan, S/o Late C. Rajalingam, Office at No. 48 East Madha Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 -013. ....Applicant(s) Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. State of Tamil Nadu Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Through the Chairman, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
4. M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Through its Managing Director, Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi (PO), Maduranthagam (TK), Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu - 603 303 ...Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanly Hebzon Singh For Respondent(s): Mr. G. M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3 Mr. A. Ramesh Kumar for R4 Judgment Reserved on: 30th August 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 29th September, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes.
Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes.
JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. The grievance in this application was regarding the violations committed by the 4th respondent/ M/s. sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in operating their Pharmaceutical Industry of manufacturing of Bulk Drugs and Intermediates in the lake comprising in survey number 90/2, 90/3, 90/4, 99/1, 99/2, 99/3, 99/4, 99/5, 100/1, 100/2A, 200/2B, 100/3 Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi (PO), Maduranthagam (TK), Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu - 603 303.
2. It was alleged in the application that the applicant was a person who is interested in protecting environment and has filed various applications before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras and this Tribunal in respect of environmental issues affecting the coastal zone and other areas having ecologically sensitive nature. The applicant was authorised to file the application on behalf of the Association vide their resolution dated 26.04.2016 as evidenced by AnnexureI.
3. The 4th respondent/ M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was engaged in manufacture of "Synthetic organic chemicals, Bulk Drugs and Intermediates" in the area mentioned above without obtaining prior environmental clearance as laid down under the Category „A‟ prescribed in Item.5(f) (Synthetic organic chemicals, Bulk Drugs and Intermediates)" of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. Further, the aforesaid plant was situated within the close proximity to the "CORE ZONE" of the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary declared by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms. No. 199 dated 03.07.1999 evidenced by Annexure-II notification. The 4th respondent had acquired the plant and the area in the year 1999 and started the manufacturing activities in the year 2000 at Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi (PO), Maduranthagam (TK), Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu
- 603 303. The unit of the 4th respondent was engaged in the business of production and manufacturing of Bulk Drugs and Intermediates, which was categorised as "Red Category Industry" by the Central Pollution Control Board. The unit was running the unit without obtaining prior environmental clearance from its inspection in violation of the EIA Notification 2006ad as such the continuous of the unit was illegal.
4. The 4th respondent acquired the land in the year, 1999 and started its manufacturing activities in the year, 2000 without abiding the laws laid down under the EIA notification, 1994. The EIA Notification, 1994 mandates that all industries including Bulk Drugs and Pharmaceutical Industry should obtain Environment Clearance prior to the Commencement of the activities. In the instant case, the 4th respondent failed to obtain the Environmental Clearance as laid down under Schedule-I, Item.8 "Bulk Drugs and Pharmaceutical" of the EIA Notification, 1994 as evidenced by Annexure-III.
5. The 4th respondent not only violated the norms laid down under EIA Notification, 1994 but also not obtained Prior Environmental Clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 in so far as the activities of the 4th respondent falls under the Category „A‟ of Item.5 (f) "Synthetic organic chemicals, Bulk Drugs and Intermediates" of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006. They have not only failed to follow mandatory provisions of EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006, but they have also committed act of omissions as well as the State Pollution Control Board who bestowed with the duty and responsibilities to inform the project proponent to seek Environmental Clearance as and when the activities falls under the EIA Notification. In the instant case, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board granted consent to operate to the 4th respondent vide consent order no.
2005218846891 dated 02.01.2020 as evidenced by Annexure-IV, but failed to advise the 4th respondent to seek environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 which was contrary to the provision of the EIA Notification as well as the circular issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests vide F.No.J-1103/41/2006-IA-II(I) dated 15.01.2008 as evidenced by Annexure-V where it was mentioned that in view of the above it was advised that the State Pollution Control Boards not to grant/revalidate NOC/CTE without advising the proponent to seek Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 for the projects which were listed in the EIA Notification, 1994 and are now also listed under EIA Notification, 2006 even if they have acquired the land before January 1994. All such projects, which were issued NOC/CTE before September, 2006 and listed in both the notification, but have not commenced the project activities at the site shall not start the project activity now without obtaining prior environment clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 even if the land was acquired before January,1994. So there was a responsibility on the part of the State Pollution Control Board to direct the project proponent to obtain Environmental Clearance, if their activities are falling under both the EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006, but no such direction was issued by them.
6. The 4th respondent had required a Prior Environmental Clearance was known to the 3rd respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board even at the time of original consent and also at the time of renewals but they had permitted the activities of the unit issuing the consent and renewing the consent without advising the 4th respondent to obtain Environmental Clearance. They were also expected to monitor the activities of the 4th respondent and take action if there was any violations committed applying the principle‟s laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.C. Metha vs. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118 where the role of the Pollution Control Board had been mentioned as follows:-
"47... The regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by such entrepreneurs. When questioned, the regulatory authorities have to show that the said authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon them. Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment, natural resources and people‟s life, health and property, the principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be applied."
7. Even assuming that the 4th respondent did not require Environmental Clearance as the existing industry was established prior to coming into force of EIA Notification, 1994 when they had involved in change of product mix, they were not expected to proceed with the expansion activity without obtaining Prior Environmental Clearance both under the EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006. EIA Notification, 2006 enumerates as follows:-
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification:
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii) Any change in the product-mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range,
8. It was clear that the project proponent should obtain Prior Environmental Clearance for expansion and change of product mix for the existing project or activities under the EIA Notification 2006. But in the instant case, the 4 th respondent never approached the authorities for seeking Environmental Clearance from its inception and hence, the 4th respondent enhancing the expansion i.e. by increasing the production and change of product mix year to year without obtaining the Environmental Clearance was illegal. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had failed to discharge their duties by way of inspection and monitor the regular compliance of the 4th respondent unit in terms of the expansion. The 4th respondent had proceeded with the expansion activity only on the basis of the consent to establish and consent to operate given by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearance which is required under EIA Notification 2006.
9. Further the unit was situated in the core area of Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary which was considered to be the home for migratory birds such as pintail, garganey, grey, wagtail, blue-winged teal, common sandpiper and etc., and the region attracts many varieties of rare birds because it was dotted with small lakes but acted as feeding grounds for the birds. The unit of the 4th respondent was not only operating without Environmental Clearance but also there was no EIA process for the aforesaid operations. The State Pollution Control Board failed to discharge their duties and allowing the highly polluted unit without undergoing the EIA process in so far as it was mandatory for the unit who manufactures and deals with hazardous chemicals. They were running the unit without following the existing environmental laws and thereby their operation was illegal and the same has to be stopped in order to preserve the homes of the birds especially the migrant birds in that vicinity. They were also discharging untreated trade and hazardous effluents into the Vedanthangal lake and thereby polluting the same and affected the healthy atmosphere of the lake which attracts large number of birds. Certain newspaper reports were relied on by the applicant published in „New Indian Express dated 14.06.2020 under the caption of "Mismanagement, Lapses near Vedanthangal Sanctuary threaten eviction of migratory Birds" and this was produced as Annexure-VII to substantiate their case that on account of the discharge of untreated waste water and effluent generated in the unit into the lake thereby causing pollution to the lake.
10. According to the applicant, the running of the unit was unauthorised, illegal and impact on Vedandhangal Bird Sanctuary. In spite of various representations were made in this regard, no action was taken by the authorities. The applicant was also relied on the necessity to obtain prior Environmental Clearance as observed by the Hon‟ble Ape Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Rohit Prajapati, 2020 SCC Online SC 347 Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2016. So the applicant filed this application seeking the following Interim as well as main reliefs:-
Interim Relief:
a) Restrain the 4th respondent from carrying out any activities in respect of the project.
i.e., Bulk Drug and Intermediates and other connected activities therein at 90/2, 90/3, 90/4, 99/1, 99/2, 99/3, 99/4, 99/5, 100/1, 100/2A, 200/2B, 100/3 Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi (PO), Maduranthagam (TK), Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu - 603
303. Otherwise, grave and irreversible damage would be caused to the Environment especially to the Vedanthangal Lake Bird Sanctuary and its surrounded water bodies.
b) Appoint an Independent expert committee in order to examine and assess the damage caused by the 4th respondent to the environment and eulogy especially to the Vedanthangal Lake Bird Sanctuary and its surrounded water bodies.
Main Relief:
i. Issue direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to initiate appropriate action against the 4th respondent for continuing illegal and unauthorized operation of plant at 90/2, 90/3, 90/4, 99/1, 99/2, 99/3, 99/4, 99/5, 100/1, 100/2A, 200/2B, 100/3 Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi (PO), Maduranthagam (TK), Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu - 603 303 without obtaining the Prior Environmental Clearance as laid down under the Category „A‟ of Item.5 (f) "Synthetic organic chemicals, Bulk Drug and Intermediates" of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006.
ii. Direct Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to initiate enquiry and actions against the concerned erring officials for permitting the respondent No.4 to be run and operated illegally without Environmental Clearance. iii. Appoint a permanent experts committee to protect the Vedanthangal lake bird sanctuary and its surrounded water bodies from the unauthorized and illegal activities.
iv. Direct the respondent No.4 to pay Environmental damage for polluting the environment.
11. As per order dated 26.06.2020 having satisfied that they arose a substantial question of environment which required the interference of this Tribunal, this Tribunal had admitted the matter and appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (1) Senior Officer from Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Integrated Regional Office, Chennai, (2) Any Senior Scientist/Senior Officer form Central Pollution Control Board, Integrated Regional Office, Chennai, (3) a Senior Forest Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Tamil Nadu who is in charge of Wild Life dealing with the Bird Sanctuary, (4) the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, (5) District Forest officer, Kancheepuram District and (6) a Senior Scientist from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as deputed by its Chairman to inspect the unit in question and submit a factual and action taken report, if there was any violation found.
12. The committee was directed to consider the question as to (a) whether 4th respondent unit was having all necessary clearances and consent and other permission as required under law, (b) whether the pollution control mechanism provided in the unit were sufficient to protect environment, (c) whether there was any violation of up keeping the pollution control mechanism provided which resulted in nonconformity with the standard provided under the environmental laws, (d) whether there was any unauthorised discharge of untreated trade effluents from the lake to the nearby agricultural fields or other water bodies, if so what was the impact of that illegality on the water quality as well as the soil quality in the locality, (e) if there was any violation and degradation found, then what are all the steps to be taken for remediation and also assess environmental compensation against them in accordance with law as directed by this Tribunal in several cases of such nature, (f) whether there was any violation of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Waste Management Rules, the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 committed by the fourth respondent.
13. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Integrated Regional Office, Chennai was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.
14. A mention was made on 30.06.2020 that the area now falls within Chengalpattu District, the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that it is in Kancheepuram District and the District Collector - Kancheepuram District was made as party to the proceedings and the District Collector-Kancheepuram District had included in the Committee. So instead of District Forest Officer, and the District Collector - Kancheepuram District, Wildlife Warden in charge of Bird Sanctuary, Chennai and the District Collector- Chengalpattu District were substituted in the place of District Collector-Kancheepuram District and District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram District. The Committee was re-
constituted accordingly as per order dated 30.06.2020.
15. The first respondent/Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had filed their counter affidavit contending that Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had notified that Environment Impact Notification, 2006 under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which deals with the projects to which prior Environmental Clearance was required. As per EIA Notification, 2006 and subsequent amendments, all new projects or activities listed in the Schedule expansion or modernisation of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule with change in product mix in an existing manufacturing unit required Environmental Clearance from the concerned authorities. No activity can commence before grant of Environmental Clearance. They had also mentioned about the various categories of projects and the authorities which were empowered to consider the question of granting Environmental Clearance as per EIA Notification and the procedure for making the application, processing the application, appraising the documents and granting or rejecting the Environmental Clearance as per the provisions of EIA Notification. It was also further mentioned that the procedure for considering the application, namely, Stage (1) Screening, Stage (2) Scooping i.e., Prescribing Terms of Reference (TOR) for undertaking detailed Environment Impact Assessment Study, Stage (3) Public Consultation - to be conducted by the respective areas /UT Pollution Control Board/Committee and Stage (4) Appraisal - by Expert Appraisal Committee (EACs/State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEACs).
16. As per the "General Conditions" under the EIA Notification, 2006, certain categories as shown as „B‟ Category will be treated as „A‟ Category, if located in whole or in part within 10km from the boundary of (i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted areas as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco-sensitive areas, (iv) Inter-State boundaries and International boundaries" and then the same will have to be appraised at the Central Level by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. As per entry 5(f) EIA Notification, 2006, the industries dealing with „Synthetic Organic Chemicals Industry‟ (dyes & dyintermediates, bulk drugs intermediates excluding drug formulation, synthetic rubbers, basic organic chemicals, other synthetic organic chemicals and chemical intermediates require prior Environmental Clearance for starting the unit. It will be treated as „Category A‟ or „Category B‟ depending upon the location of the industry for which Environmental Clearance was sought. All such units attracting the said provisions were allowed to commence their activity only after obtaining Prior Environmental Clearance.
17. Further, as per S.O. 1223 (E) dated 27.03.2020 and S.O. 3636 (E) dated 15.10.2020 and 16.07.2021 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, all the projects in respect of active pharmaceutical industry (API) are to be appraised as „Category‟B-2‟ upto 31.12.2021 at Central or State level depending upon the applicability of General Condition as mentioned above. As per EIA Notification, 1994 any person who decided to undertake any new project in any part of India or expansion or modernisation of any existing industry or project listed in the Schedule shall have to apply for Environmental Clearance to the Competent Authority. Since the respondent unit had started its operation prior to 1994, exemption had been granted to the Unit in the EIA Notification, 1994. In case the industry undergoes any expansion or modernisation subsequent to the EIA Notification, 2006 and it was required to obtain prior Environment Clearance as per provisions of the said notification.
18. In the committee appointed by this Tribunal by the order dated 26.06.2020 wherein the Officer of the Regional Office of the respondent was the Member. The respondent unit had not submitted any application for Environmental Clearance to the Answering Respondent for Central level consideration. A copy of the Form-1 submitted to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority by the 4th respondent industry as Annexure A1. They prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.
19. The 4th respondent had filed their detailed counter affidavit contending that M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was a professionally managed public limited company established in the year 1983 located at SPARC, TANDALJA, Vadodara 390 012. They manufacture and market a wide range of intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and drug products and basic research centre of the SPARC (Sun Pharma Advance Research Company) was located at Vadodara, Gujarat State. Sun Pharma was one of the leading generic medicine manufacturing companies in the word. The present manufacturing site at Maduranthagam was established in the year 1992-93 and manufacturing various lifesaving medicines. This plant had statutory approvals and the licences from various regulating agencies and for providing employment to 438 employees and about 200 contract labourers. Most of the contract employees are from the nearby villages and from the State of Tamil Nadu.
20. The 4th respondent was equipped with all safety and environment protect systems and controls like Pressure Relief Valves (PRV), Safety Relief Valve (SRV), Fire Extinguisher, Fire hydrants, Flame arrester, Breather Valves, Sprinkler System, Fire tenders, Ambulance, Emergency Response Team, emergency siren & alarm system etc., The site had well equipped Occupational Health Canter (OHC) inside the factory premises with qualified Doctor and Paramedical staff.
21. The fourth respondent has Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) treatment facility viz., Solvent Stripper, Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) and Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD) for COD stream. Low COD effluent treated through Effluent Treatment Plant Biological treatment system followed by Reverse Osmosis Plant from all the waste water from the process. The treated water was being recycled for their utilities. The sewage water was treated through Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The treated sewage water was effectively used for gardening and other utilities. The emission from manufacturing equipment was connected to scrubber to avoid any emission from the manufacturing process. The cyclone separator followed by bag filter was installed as an air pollution control measure in flue gas stacks in boiler. The relevant parameters required for the control systems and real time data were being monitored by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The site had Solvent Recovery Plant for distillation of various solvents. The recovered solvent from the Solvent Recovery Plant was reused in the process. The company had developed the greenbelt in an area of 21992 Sq.M. which was 31.47% of the total plot area. In that 100 number of various types of trees like Gulmohar (Delonix regia), Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Pungam (Pongamia Pinnata) and had also 1500 numbers of Bamboo trees planted around the boundary walls and the treated sewage water was utilized to maintain the greenbelt area. There are few other industries near the site which includes Pharmaceuticals (Formulations), Bulk Drugs & intermediates, Manufacturing of Automotive spares, Textiles, Commercial battery manufacturing, Welding electrode manufacturing etc.,
22. The 4th respondent had started the unit in the year 1992-93 after obtaining all necessary statutory licences, originally in the name of M/s. Pradeep Exports (A Unit of Pradeep Drug Company Limited). The Unit was operating as per the authorization issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Consent Order No. 8850 dated 09.04.1992 evidenced by (Annexure-1) as produced along with the counter statement. The first EIA Notification 1994 exempted the industries from obtaining Environmental Clearance if it was started the operation before 1994, the predecessor of the 4th respondent had started the operations in the year 1992-93 before EIA Notification 1994. Hence the regime of environmental clearance was not applicable to their factory. In the year 2000 the company namely, M/s. Pradeep exports was merged with M/s. Sun Pharma Industries Limited by a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras. The Unit applied for change of products mix in the year 2005 and detailed study was conducted through Anna University, Chennai to assess the environmental viability for the product mix. As per the report of the quantity of generation of all kind of waste within the limit or earlier permitted quantity as evidenced by Annexure - 2. As there was no change in previously approved waste quantity, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had granted „Consent to Establishment‟ (CTE) to the site vide order no. 3094 (Air) & (Water) in the year 2005 and subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued „Consent to Operate‟ (CTO) vide order no. 16641 (Air) & 20607 (Water) dated 19.06.2006 as evidenced by Annexure - 3. As per EIA Notification 2006, as evidenced by Annexure - 4 the change in Product-Mix, changes in the quantities or numbers of products may be allowed without prior Environmental Clearance by the concerned Pollution Control Board provided such changes in the quantity of products are in the same category and are within the previously granted overall total limits. The 4th respondent had current CTO vide order no. 2005218846891 (Air) & 2005118846891 (Water) issued dated 02.01.2020 and these things were mentioned by the Joint Committee in their report. They denied the allegations that they had required environmental clearance for starting the unit etc.,
23. M/s. Pradeep Drug Company was merged with M/s. Sun Pharma Industries Limited in the year 2000. The Unit applied for change in products mix in the year 2005 and study was conducted through Anna University, Chennai to assess the environmental viability for the product mix. The „Consent to Establish‟ and the „Consent to Operate‟ were granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in the year 2005 & 2006 and the same was renewed from time to time till 02.01.2020. The 4th respondent unit applied for change in products mix in the year 2005 and the study was conducted through Anna University, Chennai to assess the environmental viability for the product mix and after satisfying with the studies, the „Consent to Operate‟ for the change for the product mix was granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in the year 2006 which has been renewed from time to time in accordance with law. All those things were reflected in the Joint Committee report. They denied the allegation of discharge of untreated sewage into the water body or agricultural lands. In fact they were adopting the Zero Liquid Discharge System and the water was being reused for their purposes including gardening and other utilities. They had given the details of the all pollution control mechanism and other waste management facilities provided in the unit.
24. The Joint Committee had made certain recommendations which were implemented by them as follows:-
25. They are not polluting industries. They have not committed any violations and they prayed for accepting their contentions and dismissal of the application.
26. The Joint Committee had filed their Interim report earlier and gave their observations in respect of necessary clearance, consent and other permissions in 4.2 as follows:-
Committee's observation:
From the above facts, it is observed that the unit started its production before 1994 and Consent was obtained from the respective State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) in 1992. As per the EIA Notification, 1994, exemption from obtaining EC, was granted to projects that were already initiated before 1994 (ANNEXURE-10).The Sun Pharma is operating its unit based on Consents were issued in 2005, 2006 and 2020 by the SPCBand also based on the findings of the Anna University study that the waste generated by the products / process of the Sun Pharma are less than the permitted amount of waste generation.EC requirement was not applicable for the existing operation.
But, for the proposed production of the bulk drug intermediates, EC is required under the current EIA 2006 and draft EIA 2020.
The unit,in May, 2020 has applied for EC for the "Proposed Change in Product Mix and Enhancement of production capacity within the existing facility". The unit has proposed for production of bulk drug intermediates of 38.11 MTPM and also proposed for new addition and enhancement of existing capacity to 75.82 MTPM. The existing production capacity of the unit is 25.5MTPM.
27. As regards the pollution control mechanism they had given their observations at 5.1 as follows:-
5.1. Committee's observation The hazardous wastes generated from Plant are collected, stored and disposed through authorized disposal cum recycle facilities as per the authorization from PCB and the unit has agreements with all waste disposal facilities for the same. There is no internal disposal facility available within the site. No trade and sewage effluent discharge to water or land. Domestic wastewater is treated in STP and treated water reuse for greenbelt development. Effluents send to ETP followed by RO.
It is observed that Solvent Recovery system is not working with high efficiency, so that the solvent along with the effluent is being sent to Multi Effect Evaporator system (MEE), where the solvent is collected separately and sent to recycler. The industry shall take necessary steps to optimise the operational efficiency of the Solvent Recovery system. The unit has installed RO system, whereas the permeate is again reused and reject is sent to MEE for further treatment. In addition to the existing RO system, the industry shall install High pressure RO or any other suitable technology to increase more recycling of treated wastewater as well as it will reduce further steam consumption of MEE due to further increase in concentration of reject.
28. As regards issue of discharge of untreated trade effluent and impact on soil quality in their observations at 6.1 as follows:-
NGT's Direction:
Hon‟ble NGT directed the Joint Committee to examine "whether there was any unauthorised discharge of untreated trade effluents from the unit to the nearby agricultural fields or other water bodies, if so what is the impact of that illegality on the water quality as well as the soil quality in the locality. If there is any violation and degradation found, what are the steps to be taken for remediation and also assess environmental compensation against them in accordance with law as directed by thisTribunal in several matters of such nature".
29. In respect of impact on Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary their observations were made at 7.1 as follows:-
Necessary clearances and consent and other permission:
The Sun Pharma started its production before 1994. As per the EIA Notification, 1994, exemption from obtaining Environmental Clearance, was granted to projects that were already initiated before 1994. The Sun Pharma is operating its unit based on Consents were issued in 2005, 2006 and 2020 by the SPCB and also based on the findings of the Anna University study that the waste generated by the products / process of the Sun Pharma are less than the permitted amount of waste generation. In view of the above, it is observed that requirement of Environmental Clearance was not applicable for the existing operation. But, for the proposed production of the bulk drug intermediates, Environmental Clearance is required under the current EIA 2006 and draft EIA 2020.
30. They wanted some time for filing the final report. Subsequently, Joint Committee had filed its report dated 04.11.2020, e-filed on 12.03.2021 which reads as follows:-
REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEEIN THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2020 (SZ) TITLED AS MEENAVA THANTHAI K.R. SELVARAJ KUMAR, MEENAVAR NALA SANGAM VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS IN COMPLIANCE OF HON'BLE NGT ORDER DATED 26.06.2020
2. BACKGROUND Hon'ble NGT Order dated26-06-2020:
The Hon'ble NGT, Southern Bench in the matter of OA No. 88 of 2020 (SZ) vide order dated 26-06-2020 (ANNEXURE-1) has constituted a Joint Committee to inspect the unit in question and submit a factual and action taken report, if there is any violation is found. The directions of NGT are reproduced below:
"9. Before going to the matter further, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Joint Committee comprising of Senior Officer of Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), any Senior Scientist form Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Chennai, Senior Forest Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Tamil Nadu who is in charge of Wild Life dealing with the Bird Sanctuary, the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, District Forest officer, Kancheepuram District and Senior Scientist of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the unit in question and submit a factual and action taken report, if there is any violation is found."
"10. Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Chennai will be the nodal agency for coordination for providing necessary logistics for this purpose."
"11. The committee is also directed to consider the question as to whether 4th respondent unit is having all necessary clearances and consent and other permission as required under law, whether the pollution control mechanism provided in the unit are sufficient to protect environment, whether there is any violation of up keeping the pollution control mechanism provided which results in nonconformity with the standard provided under the environmental laws, whether there was any unauthorised discharge of untreated trade effluents from the unit to the nearby agricultural fields or other water bodies, if so what is the impact of that illegality on the water quality as well as the soil quality in the locality. If there is any violation and degradation found, what are the steps to be taken for remediation and also assess environmental compensation against them in accordance with law as directed by this Tribunal in several matters of such nature."
"12. The committee is also directed to go into the question as to whether there is any violation of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and Other Waste Management Rules, the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 by the fourth respondent."
"13. The committee is also directed to suggest recommendation for rectifying the deficiency if any, found during inspection."
"14. Two month time is granted to the committee to submit the report to this Tribunal through e-mail or e-filing at [email protected] on or before 01.09.2020."
Hon'ble NGT Order dated 30-06-2020 revising the joint committee's members:
In continuation of its original order dated 26-06-2020, NGT issued a corrected copy of the order (ANNEXURE-2), which was uploaded in its website on 29-07-2020, in relation members of the joint committee. As per this order, the joint committee members namely the District Collector (Kancheepuram) and the District Forest Officer (Kancheepuram) were replaced by the District Collector (Chengalpattu District) and the Wildlife Warden in charge of Bird Sanctuary respectively. The revised composition of the Committee is reproduced below:
"9. Before going to the matter further, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Joint Committee comprising of Senior Officer of Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), any Senior Scientist form Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Chennai, Senior Forest Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Tamil Nadu who is in charge of Wild Life dealing with the Bird Sanctuary, the District Collector, *Chengalpet District, *Wildlife Warden in charge of Bird Sanctuary, Chennai and Senior Scientist of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to inspect the unit in question and submit a factual and action taken report, if there is any violation is found."
3. JOINT COMMITTEE The MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Chennai, as the nodal agency, requested all concerned authorities for the nomination of the officials for the joint committee and site inspection.As per the nominations received from Regional Directorate of Central Pollution Control Board (Bengaluru), Tamil Nandu Forest Department (as communicated, Shri Debasis Jana, APCCF & Director, Arignar Anna Zoological Park is in place of Sh. Yogesh Singh, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 6.8.2020), the District Collector, Chengalpattu District (nominated three officials viz, RDO, DEE and AEE- PWD), Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board and including from the Regional Office, MoEF&CC, the Joint Committee consists of the following members.
1. Shri Debasis Jana, IFS, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Director, Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai - 48
2. Mrs. C. H. Padma, IFS, Wildlife Warden, Chennai and In-charge of Vednthangal Bird Sanctuary.
3. Smt. Lakshmi Priya, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Mathranthakam, Chengalpattu Dist.
4. Shri. Vasudevan, District Environmental Engineer (DEE), TNPCB, Chengalpattu District
5. Shri Neelmudiyon, AEE,Public Works Department (WRO), Mathuranthakam, Chengalpattu Dist.
6. Sh. M. Malayandi, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai
7. Sh. V. Thiyagarajan, Deputy Director (Labs), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, AEL, Chennai
8. R. Rajkumar, Scientist 'D' Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Regional Directorate, Chennai
9. Dr. R. Sridhar, Scientist 'D', MoEF&CC,Regional Office, Chennai
4. JOINT INSPECTION OF THE COMMITTEE The joint committee visited the industrial unit, M/s Sun Pharma Industries Ltd (Sun Pharma) at Sathamai Village, Chengalpattu District (Tamil Nadu) on 31-07-2020. All the members participated in the joint inspection (ANNEXURE-2A-ATTENADANCE). In addition to the members, Shri Subbiah, Forest Range Officer, Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and staffs of DEE office (Chengalpattu) also supported the committee.
The Sun Pharma made a presentation on overview of the company and site details. It also explained various aspects of the operation including effluent generation, waste water management, zero liquid discharge (ZLD) system, effluent treatment system, solid / hazardous waste management system, air pollution control measures, solvent recovery management system and online monitoring system.The committee asked the Sun Pharma to provide copies of all necessary clearances and consent and other permission, information on pollution control mechanism in the unit, production details and information on hazardous and other waste generation. After the site inspection, the committee made a visit to nearby water bodies, agriculture fields, the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and Maduranthagam lake and collected requisite water/sediment samples in the lake environment.
The Committee met again on 4-11-2020 at TNPCB Office (Arumbakkam, Chennai) and discussed the outcome of the water and soil quality analysis, Environmental Compensation and recommendations and finalized the report.
5. NECESSARY CLEARANCES AND CONSENT AND OTHER PERMISSION:
The Sun Pharma an existing pharmaceutical industry was established in the year 1992-93 located at Survey No. 90/2, 90/3, 90/4, 99/1, 99/2, 99/3, 99/4, 99/5, 100/1, 100/2A, 100/2B, 100/3, in Sathammai Village, Karunkuzhi Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu. Total land area is 17.27 acres with 31.47% of greenbelt along the periphery and other areas.From the industry, the Vedanthagal Bird Sanctuary is located at 3.72 Km of west. The important water bodies like Maduranthagamlake is located south west of the industry (Maduranthagam Tank: 1.13 km SW Direction; Maduranthagam High Level Channel: 4.93 km SSW Direction) Consent under Air and Water Acts:
Consent issued in 1992: As per the documents submitted to the Committee, initially, Consent was issued to the M/s Pradeep Exports (A unit of Pradeep drug Company Ltd), Sathamai Village (Maduranthagam Taluk) vide Consent Order No.8850 dated 9-4-1992 under the Water Act, 1974 with validity up to 31-03-1993 and thereafter modification issued on 5-6-1992. The company was later merged with/converted into M/s Sun Pharma Industries Ltd. (Copy of Consent given at ANNEXURE -3).
Environmental viability study: A study was conducted in June 2005 by the Anna University, Chennai to assess the environmental viability for the additional products/ processes of Sun Pharma (A copy of the report is at ANNEXURE-4) Consent issued in 2005: The TNPCB granted CTE to the Sun Pharma vide Order No. 3094 dated 30-11-2005 with validity up to two-years or till industry obtains the CTO under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, whichever is earlier.
The TNPCB granted CTE to the Sun Pharma vide Order No. 3150 dated 30-11- 2005 with validity up to two-years or till industry obtains the CTO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended, whichever is earlier. (ANNEXURE-5) Consent issued in 2006: The TNPCB granted CTO to the Sun Pharma vide Order No 16641 dated 19-06-2006 with one-year validity upto 31-03-2007 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended.
The TNPCB granted Consent for altered discharge of sewage and /or trade effluent to the Sun Pharma vide Order No. 20607 dated 19-06-2006 with one- year validity upto 31-03-2007 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended. (ANNEXURE-6) Consent issued in 2020: The TNPCB granted CTO to the Sun Pharma vide Order No. 2005218846891 dated 02-01-2020 with one-year validity upto 31- 03-2021 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended. The TNPCB granted CTO to the SPIL vide Order No. 2005118846891 dated 02-01-2020 with one-year validity upto 31- 03-2021 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended. (ANNEXURE -7) The industry submitted the details of „raw materials and consumption‟ for the year 2019-2020 and for the year April 2020- July 2020 for production of (i) Clomipramine (ii) Oxetacaine
(iii) Sodium Valporate (ANNEXURE -8).
Authorization under Hazardous Waste Rules: The TNPCB granted Authorization to the Sun Pharma vide Order No. 4880 dated 18-07-2016 with validity for a period of five years from the date of issue, under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. (ANNEXURE-9) Public Liability Insurance Act 1991: The industry has obtained public liability insurance policy for the period from July 01, 2020 to June 30, 2021 under the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 with limit of indemnity of Rs. 15 crore (AoY) and Rs. 5 crore (AoA) for the purpose of accidents due to handling of hazardous substances in the industry.
Fire Licence: Fire licence issued by the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services valid up to 22-06-2021.
Committee's observation:
From the above facts, it is observed that the unit started its production before 1994 and Consent was obtained from the respective State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) in 1992. As per the EIA Notification, 1994, exemption from obtaining EC, was granted to projects that were already initiated before 1994 (ANNEXURE-10).The Sun Pharma is operating its unit based on Consents were issued in 2005, 2006 and 2020 by the SPCBand also based on the findings of the Anna University study that the waste generated by the products / process of the Sun Pharma are less than the permitted amount of waste generation.EC requirement was not applicable for the existing operation. But, for the proposed production of the bulk drug intermediates, EC is required under the current EIA 2006 and draft EIA 2020.
The unit,in May, 2020 has applied for EC for the "Proposed Change in Product Mix and Enhancement of production capacity within the existing facility". The unit has proposed for production of bulk drug intermediates of 38.11 MTPM and also proposed for new addition and enhancement of existing capacity to 75.82 MTPM. The existing production capacity of the unit is 25.5MTPM.
6. POLLUTION CONTROL MECHANISM The industry has separate Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). Generated waste water is treated in Zero Liquid Discharge system [Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE) and Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATED)]. Effluents send to ETP followed by RO. RO permeate reuse for utilities & others & RO rejects sent to MEE Plant & MEE rejects send to ATFD.
Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP): The effluent generated from manufacturing plant is collected and treated through ETP (The details of ETP Components and Specification details are given at ANNEXURE-11).Sewage is treated by STP. 34.5 KLD of effluent is generated by the unit which is treated by ETP and 22.5 KLD of sewage is generated and treated by STP. Treated water sent to greenbelt.
Hazardous Wastes: The industry has submitted a copy of Annual Return (Form -IV) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 submitted to SPCB, for the year April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to March 2020 (ANNEXURE -12). The industry generated hazardous waste viz., (i) Spent Nickel (1.5 tons)
(ii) Spent Carbon (4.29 tons) (iii) Spent Organic Solvents (239 tons) (iv) Spent Oil (1.5 tons) and Discarded Barrels/ Containers used for handling hazardous wastes/chemicals (1492) and Chemical Sludge from waste water treatment (629.43) for the year April 2019 to March 2020.
The hazardous waste generated for the year April 2018 - March 19 are (i) Spent Nickel (1.5 tons) (ii) Spent Carbon (4.29 tons) (iii) Spent Organic Solvents (240 tons) (iv) Spent Oil (1.5 tons) and Discarded Barrels/ Containers used for handling hazardous wastes/chemicals -HDPE drums (1492) and Chemical Sludge from waste water treatment (731.19) The hazardous wastes that are generated are sent to authorised TSDF Facilitators /Recyclers as per the details given below:
Hazardous Authorised TSDF/Recyclers waste/category as per HW Rules 2016
Spent Oil (Category: 5.1) Sri Chementor Pvt Ltd. Perumbakkam Village, Vanur Taluk, Vilupuram, Tamil Nadu Spent Catalyst (Nickel) M/s Roddhi Siddhi Steels and alloys, Nagpur, Maharashtra (Category: 28.2) Spent Carbon (Category: -Tamil Nadu Waste Management Ltd, Gummidipoondi, Tamil 28.3) and Nadu Chemical sludge -GE Eco Services, Kadappa District, Andhra Pradesh (Category: 35.3) Spent solvent -Sri Chementor Pvt Ltd. Perumbakkam Village, Vanur Taluk, (Category: 28.6) Vilupuram, Tamil Nadu
- M/s Pentakcoat resins, Kondalankuppam Village, Vanur Taluk, Vilupuram, Tamil Nadu
-OZPEC Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd Coimbatore Dist, Tamil Nadu Discarded Barrels, Liners M/s Dhanasekaran Nadar Traders Unit-II and fibre drums Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu (Category: 33.1) Municipal Solid Waste: Solid Wastes generated from canteen is being utilised as manure within the premises.
Water Supply: As per the information provided to the committee, the industry has got agreement with external agency, M/s Lakshmi Waters, Mamandoor (Chengalpattu) for raw water supply for operation of the unit.
Water Balance Sheet: The industry submitted the water balance sheet stating the quantity of water used in the different processes, wastewater generation, sludge generation during the treatment, quantity of wastewater passed through RO system, quantity permeate and rejects, quantity of water recycled into the processes and the quantity of treated wastewater discharged (ANNEXURE -13).
Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programme: As per the document produced to the Committee, a leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programme was implemented to comply with environmental regulations for reducing the fugitive emissions of targeted chemicals into the environment. This study was conducted by Glens Innovation Labs Pvt Ltd, Chennai.The study concluded that the Sun Pharma has a yearly emission of VOC was 36.20 kg/year/ and the percentage VOC reduction from fugitive emissions is due to LDAR study around 92%. (ANNEXURE -14) Air control measures installed at site like scrubbers, cyclone separator, chimney stack as per recommendation of CPCB and for effluent, ZLD system is being operated.
5.1. Committee's observation The hazardous wastes generated from Plant are collected, stored and disposed through authorized disposal cum recycle facilities as per the authorization from PCB and the unit has agreements with all waste disposal facilities for the same. There is no internal disposal facility available within the site. No trade and sewage effluent discharge to water or land. Domestic wastewater is treated in STP and treated water reuse for greenbelt development. Effluents send to ETP followed by RO.
It is observed that Solvent Recovery system is not working with high efficiency, so that the solvent along with the effluent is being sent to Multi Effect Evaporator system (MEE), where the solvent is collected separately and sent to recycler. The industry shall take necessary steps to optimise the operational efficiency of the Solvent Recovery system.
The unit has installed RO system, whereas the permeate is again reused and reject is sent to MEE for further treatment. In addition to the existing RO system, the industry shall install High pressure RO or any other suitable technology to increase more recycling of treated wastewater as well as it will reduce further steam consumption of MEE due to further increase in concentration of reject.
7. ISSUES ON DISCHARGE OF UNTREATED TRADE EFFLUENTS AND IMPACT ON WATER AND SOIL QUALITY NGT's Direction:
Hon'ble NGT directed the Joint Committee to examine "whether there was any unauthorised discharge of untreated trade effluents from the unit to the nearby agricultural fields or other water bodies, if so what is the impact of that illegality on the water quality as well as the soil quality in the locality. If there is any violation and degradation found, what are the steps to be taken for remediation and also assess environmental compensation against them in accordance with law as directed by this Tribunal in several matters of such nature".
Study to assess the presence of industrial pollutants in water, soil and sediment:
As follow up of the above direction, the Committee during its visit to the unit on 31- 07-2020, investigated about the waste water/effluent disposal from the unit. The Committee inspected the ZLD system / ETP site, monitoring well, rain water drain, storage tank and other drain outlets around the industry.
It was noted that the industry manufactures wide range of Intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and Drug products. The source of effluent generation from the industry is from Mother Liquor and Aqueous Layer from process, Equipment & Vessel washing, QC lab washing, Floor cleaning and Utility Blow down. Toluene is one of the major raw materials used by the industry for manufacturing chlomipramine, sodium valproate and Oxetacaine.
The Committee decided to examine the water quality as well as the soil quality by analysing industry specific parameters (Copper, Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Toluene, Chlorobenzene, M-Xylene, Naphthalene, other Volatile Organic Compounds), in and around the industrial unit in order to assess whether any specific industrial pollutants caused water & soil pollution. Accordingly, the following representative samples from were collected and analysed through NABL/QCI accredited Laboratory (GLens Innovation Labs, Chennai). The observed values for the water quality and soil quality parameters studied are given in Table 1- 5.
Samples Locations/Name (Sampling locations are given in Map) Ground water Monitoring wells located within the industry site and various upstream and downstream locations of the industry Surface water Vedathangal Lake, Pudhupethangal eri, Hanumankuppam pond, Maduranthangam eri and open well at Pudhupet village Sediment Vedanthan village, Pudupettangal eri, Hanumanthakuppam and Madhuranthagam eri Soil New well northern side, Near muru, Francis trust- south, Ellappan site and Kandanpudupet Parameter Table 1. Ground Water Industries Monitoring Upstream Downstream well within premises of industry of industry MW MW MW MW Sathamm Sathamm France Franci Unuse 1 2 3 4 ai open ai open s s trust d unused well 2 Trust south vellapa well 1 Well side n Side PH 7.37 7.16 6.23 6.8 6.89 6.98 7.21 7.22 7.25 Total Dissolved 1074 3988 7408 2176 3142 892 696 1724 1790 Solids (mg/L) COD (mg/L) 28 104 118 151 61 33 28 47 57 BOD (mg/L) 7 17 15 19 7 6 5 8 8 C6H5OH BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) 5 15 23 20 9 2 1 11 10 Cr6+ (mg/L) BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Cr BDL 0.005 BDL 0.002 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (mg/L) Cu 0.078 0.074 0.003 0.004 0.002 BDL BDL BDL BDL (mg/L) Toluene BDL 10.89 26.19 25.49 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Chlorobenze BDL BDL 10.56 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ne M-Xylene BDL BDL 19.27 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Naphthalene BDL BDL 18.64 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL: Below Detection Limit; Limit of Quantification: 10.0 µg/L The impact of the water quality is assessed based on the signature pollutants majorly solvents used by the pharma industry.
Table 2. Lake (Surface Water) Vedathangal Pudhupethang Hanumankuppa Madurantha Pudhupet Parameter Lake al eri m pond ngam eri village-
open well
PH 6.8 6.82 7.86 7.21 7.04
Total 295 710 1065 1424 852
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/L)
Copper BDL 0.028 BDL BDL BDL
(mg/L)
Chromiu BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
m (mg/L)
Table 3. Lake Sediment
Parameter Vedanthan village Pudupettangal Hanumanthakuppam Madhuranthagam
eri eri
PH 6.68 6.88 6.67 6.82
Volatile 3.7 1.5 5.6 1.2
solids
Table 4. Soil
Parameter New well Near muru Francis Ellappan Kandanpudupet
northern side trust- south site
PH 7.1 6.78 7.1 7.19 7.02
EC 44.2 53.8 317 105 43.8
Sodium 1.24 1.12 3.3 1.52 2.17
Absorption
Oranic Matter 0.1 0.1 0.22 0.23 0.1
CEC 18.52 33.93 49.03 51.69 38.79
(meq/100g)
Table 5. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/L) of lake, sediment, soil & ground water (Except industry monitoring well) S.N Lis of VOCs Limit of Lake Sediment Soil Ground Quantification (Surface water (LoQ) water) samples
1. DICHLOROMETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
2. 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
3. RANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
4. 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
5. CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
6. 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
7. 1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
8. CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
9. 1,1-DICHLOROPROPANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
10. CHLOROFORM, BDL BDL BDL BDL
11. CARBONTETRACHLORIDE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
12. BROMOCHLOROMETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
13. TOLUENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
14. BENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
15. 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
16. TRANS-1,3- BDL BDL BDL BDL DICHLOROPROPANE,
17. 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE, 10.0 µg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL
18. BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BDL BDL BDL BDL
19. 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
20. TRICHLOROETHYLENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
21. DIBROMOMETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
22. 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE BDL BDL BDL BDL
23. 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
24. DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
25. 1,1,1,2- BDL BDL BDL BDL TETRACHLOROETHANE,
26. TETRACHLOROETHENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
27. m-XYLENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
28. p-XYLENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
29. o-XYLENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
30. ETHYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
31. CHLOROBENZENE BDL BDL BDL BDL
32. BROMOBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
33. STYRENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
34. 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
35. ISOPROPYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL 26
36. 1,1,2,2- BDL BDL BDL BDL TETRACHLOROETHANE,
37. PROPYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
38. BROMOFORM, BDL BDL BDL BDL
39. 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
40. P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
41. 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
42. 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
43. 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
44. 2-CHLOROTOLUENE BDL BDL BDL BDL
45. 4-CHLOROTOLUENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
46. NAPHTHALENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
47. 1,2-DIBROMO-3- BDL BDL BDL BDL CHLOROPROPANE,
48. 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
49. sec-BUTYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
50. t-BUTYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
51. n-BUTYLBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
52. 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
53. 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE, BDL BDL BDL BDL
54. HEXACHLORO-1,3- BDL BDL BDL BDL BUTADIENE BDL: Below Detection Limit; Limit of Quantification: 10.0 µg/L Committee's Observation:
(i) Impact of industrial effluent on quality of surface water and sediment of Vedanthangal lake located within the Bird Sanctuary:
The analysis of surface water and sediment collected from the Vedanthangal lake shows that there is no specific impact from the industrial effluent. Copper and Chromium concentration were negative and observed in below detectable limit. The common Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from the industrial activity namely benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene were found in below detectable level in surface water and sediment of the lake.
As per the information provided by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department, "migratory birds visit to the lake every year and nesting is noted based on monsoon dynamics. Nesting birds usually leave the nest in the morning and return back by evening, they go to farther locations mostly and few bird species prefer surrounding 1 or 2 km area. so far, no casualty of Vedanthangal birds is noted due to any consumption of water or feed from surrounding water bodies or field area".
Based on the analysis of water and sediment samples and above facts given by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department, the committee is of the opinion that there may be no impact of industrial pollutants to the lake by the industry and no likely threat to the migratory birds of Vedanthagal Bird Sanctuary.
(ii) Impact of industrial effluent on quality of surface water and sediment of water bodies (Pudhupethangal Eri, Hanumankuppam pond, Maduranthangam Eri and Pudhupet village - open well) The analysis of surface water and sediment collected from the water bodies namely Pudhupethangal Eri, Hanumankuppam pond, Maduranthangam Eri and Pudhupet village (open well) shows that there is no specific impact from the industrial effluent. Copper and Chromium concentration were negative and observed in below detectable limit. The 27 common VOCs from the industrial activity namely benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene were found in below detectable level in surface water and sediment of the above water bodies. Committee noted that these water bodies are located downstream of Vedanthangal lake and there is no chance that the water from these water bodies gets into Vedanthangal lake/Bird Sanctuary.
(iii) Impact of industrial effluent on ground water quality:
Ground water samples were collected from nine locations in and around the industry. (Four from the monitoring wells located within the industry site and three from downstream locations and two from the upstream locations of the industry). The samples were tested for Phenolic compound (C6H5OH), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), in addition other chemical parameters.
From the ground water quality analysis, it is observed that there is contamination of ground water observed at industry monitoring wells. Occurrence of VOCs namely Toluene, Chlorobenzene, M-Xylene and Naphthalene in monitoring wells inside the unit shows the ground water is contaminated. Highlights of chemical compounds observed are presented below:
Phenolic compound in all ground water samples were deducted in BDL (Below Detectable Limit) The Chromium was negative (BDL) in all upstream and downstream samples. But it was present in industries monitoring wells viz., MW 4 (0.002 mg/l) and MW2 (0.005 mg/l) which is lower than the acceptable limit of Chromium (0.05 mg/l) present in ground water.
The water quality analysis of Monitoring Well (MW3) shows the presence of VOCs namely Toluene (26.19), Chlorobenzene (10.56), M-Xylene (19.27) and Naphthalene (18.64) indicating the ground water of the industry site is contaminated.
It was noted that the industry utilised Solar Evaporation Pans (SEPs) till Sep 2011 for the disposal of high TDS effluent. The unit has further installed MEE followed by ATFD to achieve zero discharge as directed by the Pollution Control Board. The SEPs were existing till 2013 and completely found closed before Nov 2013 as per the google images (Figure: Solar Evaporation Pans, Sun Pharma).
The Committee is of the opinion that the ground water contamination in terms of VOCs at industry monitoring wells is due to the past operation/existence of Solar Evaporation Pans before Nov 2013 and damage in this system may have led to seepage and contamination of ground water and same is reflected in the analysis report (contamination at MW2, MW3 & MW4).
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Necessary clearances and consent and other permission:
The Sun Pharma started its production before 1994. As per the 28 EIA Notification, 1994, exemption from obtaining Environmental Clearance, was granted to projects that were already initiated before 1994. The Sun Pharma is operating its unit based on Consents were issued in 2005, 2006 and 2020 by the SPCB and also based on the findings of the Anna University study that the waste generated by the products / process of the Sun Pharma are less than the permitted amount of waste generation. In view of the above, it is observed that requirement of Environmental Clearance was not applicable for the existing operation. But, for the proposed production of the bulk drug intermediates, Environmental Clearance is required under the current EIA 2006 and draft EIA 2020.
Pollution Control Mechanism:
The industry is segregating low & high TDS effluent and treating them separately. The reject from low TDS treatment system is sent to MEE & treated along with High TDS effluent. The concentrate from MEE is sent to ATFD to achieve ZLD. The domestic waste water generated in the plant is treated in Sewage Treatment Plant. The treated domestic waste water is utilised for gardening.
It is observed that Solvent Recovery System is not working with high efficiency, because of that the solvent along with the effluent is sent to MEE system where the solvent is collected separately and sent to recycler. The industry shall take necessary steps to optimise the operational efficiency of the Solvent Recovery System.
In addition to the existing RO system, the industry shall install High pressure RO or any other suitable technology to increase more recycling of treated wastewater which will also reduce further steam consumption of MEE due to increase in concentration of reject.
Impact on Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary (Based on the facts submitted by TamilNadu Forest Department - ANNEXURE-15):
"The petitioner submits to Hon‟ble NGT in the Para 10 of the OA 88/2020 that M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd is close to the core zone of the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary".
"There is no core zone and buffer zone demarcations in the Vedanthangal Sanctuary Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.199, E&F Dept dated 03-07-1999. Sanctuary notification includes the water body/lake with 29.5 ha area and surrounding 5 km area (private land holdings, villages, town with intense human activity). The Sun Pharma is located at a distance of 3.7 kms from the sanctuary lake and is within the limits of 5 kms zone notified Sanctuary".
"Vedanthangal Lake is home to many nesting and roosting aquatic birds which are both local and distant migrant birds. Prime nesting species are Open Bill Stork, Grey Pelican, Painted Stork, White Ibis, Cormorants, Darter, Grey Heron, Large Egret, Spoonbill, Garganey Spot- billed Duck, etc".
"As observed by the staff in Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, nesting and 29 roosting birds arrival to the Vedanthangal Lake depends on the water level in the lake and the feed availability. It is noted from the decadal bird data that, during a good monsoon year about 30000 birds arrive to the Sanctuary from September to December and about 70000-80000 birds (including young ones) return back between Jan-May. If the rainfall is low, only about 1000-3000 birds arrival is noted in the Sanctuary and if rainfall is moderate, about 15-20000 birds arrival is noted in the Sanctuary. Sufficient water availability in the lake also indicates good feed availability. To supplement the feed, Forest Department also releases fingerlings into the lake every year".
"In Para 13 of the OA 88/2020, the petitioner submits that the Sun Pharma discharges the trade and hazardous effluents to the near-by water bodies surrounding Vedanthangal lake. Birds use the surrounding water bodies and surrounding land area for nesting and foraging. The effluents which are discharged into the surrounding water bodies and land are threat to the birds of Vedanthangal".
"Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary is known for congregation of about 30-40000 birds during a good monsoon year and these are aquatic birds. Vedanthangal aquatic birds do not nest outside the lake and they nest only inside water body/lake. Other local land bird's nesting may be noted in the surrounding area. And, with respect to the point that hazardous effluents discharged by Sun Pharma to the surrounding lakes are threat to the birds, it is noted that, Vedanthangal is a centuries old Aquatic Birds nesting area and every year, migratory birds come to the lake. Nesting is noted based on monsoon dynamics. It is observed that, nesting birds usually leave the nest in the morning and return back by evening. They go to farther locations mostly and few bird species prefer surrounding 1 or 2 km area. So far, no casualty of Vedanthangal birds is noted due to any consumption of water or feed from surrounding water bodies or field area. Further, Sun Pharma is functioning in the location even before the Bird Sanctuary was declared in 1998".
"In para 14 of the OA, the petitioner submits to the Hon‟ble NGT that Sun Pharma is close to water bodies like Sitheri, Puthupet thangal and Maduranthagam lake. And the above said water bodies join the Vedanthangal lake after catering to the needs of the agriculturists and villages. There is enormous pollution in these water bodies due to effluent discharge by the Sun Pharma".
"Vedanthangal lake is on the upstream side of Puthupet lake, Sitheri pond and Maduranthagam is the largest lake/water body into which most of the smaller water bodies drain during the good monsoon. Further, water in Maduranthagam drains towards eastern part and there is no chance that the water from these water bodies gets into Vedanthangal lake/Bird Sanctuary."
"Based on the facts and details mentioned above, it is concluded that, the submissions made in Para 10, 13 and 14 in the OA No.88/2020 by the petitioner with respect to the Vedanthangal lake/Bird Sanctuary are not based on the facts".Committee is of the opinion that that there is no impact of industry operation on the Vedanthangal lake/Bird Sanctuary and no likely threat to the migratory birds.30
Study to assess the presence of industrial pollutants in water, soil and sediment:
(i) Impact of industrial effluent on quality of surface water and sediment of Vedanthangal lake located within the Bird Sanctuary:The analysis of surface water and sediment collected from the Vedanthangal lake shows that there is no specific impact from the industrial effluent. Copper and Chromium concentration were negative and observed in below detectable limit. The common Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from the industrial activity namely benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene were found in below detectable level in surface water and sediment of the lake.
(ii) Impact of industrial effluent on quality of surface water and sediment of nearby water bodies:
The analysis of surface water and sediment collected from the water bodies namely Pudhupethangal Eri, Hanumankuppam pond, Maduranthangam Eri and Pudhupet village (open well) shows that there is no specific impact from the industrial effluent. Copper and Chromium concentration were negative and observed in below detectable limit. The common VOCs from the industrial activity namely benzene, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, xylene, and 1,3-butadiene were found in below detectable level in surface water and sediment of the above water bodies. Committee noted that these water bodies are located downstream of Vedanthangal lake and there is no chance that the water from these water bodies gets into Vedanthangal lake/Bird Sanctuary.
(iii) Impact of industrial effluent on ground water quality:
Ground water samples were collected from nine locations in and around the industry. (Four from the monitoring wells located within the industry site and three from downstream locations and two from the upstream locations of the industry). The samples were tested for Phenolic compound (C6H5OH), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), in addition other chemical parameters.
It was noted that the industry utilised Solar Evaporation Pans (SEPs) till Sep 2011 for the disposal of high TDS effluent. The unit has further installed MEE followed by ATFD to achieve zero discharge as directed by the Pollution Control Board. The SEPs were existing till 2013 and completely found closed before Nov 2013 as per the google images (Figure: Solar Evaporation Pans, Sun Pharma).
The Committee is of the opinion that the ground water contamination in terms of VOCs at industry monitoring wells is due to the past operation/existence of Solar Evaporation Pans before Nov 2013 and damage in this system may have led to seepage and contamination of ground water and same is reflected in the analysis report (contamination at MW2, MW3 & MW4).
Assessment of environmental compensation:
The Hon‟ble Tribunal directed the Joint Committee to assess environmental compensation if there is any violation and degradation found.31
Accordingly, environmental compensation towards damage observed to the ground water resource at the industry monitoring well (due to the occurrence of VOCs in the monitoring wells of the industry), is estimated based on the pollution index method developed by CPCB in the guidelines "Policy for levying Environmental Compensation (EC) for Industries" and action plan to utilize the fund". The Hon‟ble NGT has accepted the method and mentioned in the order dt 28-8-2019 in the matter of OA No. 593/2017 (W.P) (Civil) No. 375/2012, Paryavaran Suraksha samiti & anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. The following equation is used for estimating environmental compensation for the industry:
EC = PI x N x R x S x LF PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector, since it is Red Category (PI = 80) N = Number of days of violation took place, from date of inspection 31.07.2020 to 04.11.2020 (ie., date of approval of Joint Committee Report) (N = 97) R = A factor in Rupees (₹) for EC (R = 250) S = Factor for scale of operation, Large Scale (S = 1.5) LF = Location factor, for notified ecologically sensitive areas (LF = 2) (The unit is located at a distance of 3.7 kms from the sanctuary lake and is within the limits of 5 kms zone of notified Sanctuary) EC = 80 x 97 x 250 x 1.5 x 2 EC = Rs. 58,20,000 An interim compensation calculated by the committee is Rs 58,20,000 and the industry may be asked to pay the interim compensation to TNPCB. The committee is of the opinion that the proposed environmental compensation amount may be utilised for conservation of Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary.
31. They had also produced certain documents along with the Joint Committee report.
32. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had filed a report dated signed by the officer on 07.02.2022, e-filed on 10.02.2022 and extracted in Para (4 ) of the order dated 02.03.2022 which reads as follows:-
1...XXXX 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
33. The applicant had filed their objections to the Joint Committee report wherein they have stated that the unit of the project proponent had been set up in the year 1992 with production of three products, namely, 1 Furgemide 1992 2 Analgin 3 Mebendezol
34. However, by 2005 the unit enhanced its products to 10 and also abandoned the earlier products, which was corroborated by Annexure-H of Additional Information submitted by the project proponent to the Expert Appraisal Committee on 08.02.2022 during the process for applying for Environmental Clearance. The said document also showed that the Project was granted „Consent to Establish‟ on 30.11.2005 for the new products by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the nature of products was undertaken by them was detailed by the project proponent as follows:-
1 Sodium Valporate
2 Oxetacaine
41
3 Clomipramine
2005 4 Flubiprofen
5 Analgin Magnesium
6 Carbamazapine
7 Metoprolol Tartrate
8 Tramodol Hydrochloride
9 Metadoxine
10 Danazol
35. As per EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006, they cannot proceed with the expansion, modernisation or change of products mix without obtaining mandatory Environmental Clearance. In 2017 the production of the unit also increased. Further as per the EIA Notification, 1994 it was mentioned that "1. (a) Any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernisation of any industry or project listed in Schedule I shall submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi"
36. The copy of the Annexure - H of Additional Information submitted by the project to the Expert Appraisal Committee on 08.02.2022 was produced as Annexure - VIII.
37. Though the Joint Committee observed that for the existing unit though Environmental Clearance was not required as the product quantity does not exceed the permitted amount of waste generation, but Environmental Clearance was required for the proposal of production of the bulk drug and intermediates as per current EIA Notification 2006 and Draft EIA Notification 2020. The reasons given by the Joint Committee exonerating M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for not obtaining environmental clearance when they had changed the product in the year 2005 was erroneous and not correct. The Joint Committee was also not correct in observing that M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was located at a distance of 3.7 kms from the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and was within the limits of 5 km zone notified sanctuary. But in fact, they were situated within the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary area and not away from the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary.42
38. As per order dated 25.05.2022, since there was nothing mentioned about they were obtaining environmental clearance even as per the EIA Notification, 1994 was not clear, this Tribunal had directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to explain these aspects and file a report and there was a gap of consent obtained within the period of 01.04.2007 till 02.01.2020.
Since it was not clear as to whether they were operating the unit without obtaining consent during this period from the report, that was also directed to be explained by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. On that basis, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had filed a report signed by the officer on 05.07.2022, e-filed on 08.07.2022 which reads as follows:-
43 44 4539. As directed by this Tribunal Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had filed a further reply affidavit e-filed on 13.7.2022 which reads as follows:-
1..XXX 46 47 48 49 50 51
40. The 4th respondent had filed their rejoinder e-filed on 22.07.2022 which reads as follows:-52 53 54 55
41. Subsequently, as directed by this Tribunal, the 4th respondent had produced all the consent orders from the year 1992 - 2022.
42. Heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and the counsel appearing for the respondents.
43. The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that even as per the submissions made by the 4th respondent that it was a re-constituted 56 industry as the original industry was M/s. Pradeep Drug Company which was later merged with the 4th respondent/Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and thereafter they had applied for „Consent to Establish‟ as they wanted modernisation of the machineries. They had also decided to drop the manufacture of "Synthetic Organic Chemicals, Bulk Drugs and Intermediates" manufactured by their pre deserving industry and they had increased the number of products from 3- 10 of different category and none of the earlier products were included in their new products and as such once the products had been increased, they had applied for „Consent to Establish‟ for expansion, then they will be coming under the regime of environmental clearance even in the year 2005. In view of the explanation given in the EIA Notification, 1994. Further they had increased their product and also the capacity they were proceedings with the project without getting Environmental Clearance. Further, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in their report categorically submitted that when they had obtained authorisation for Hazardous Substance Management and also increased the number of products from the original products in the year 2005, they ought to have obtained environmental clearance as the product had been changed and the possible pollution load will also increased through threshold quantity granted to the earlier unit had not increased. When the pollution load increased on account of the quantity of water use and the Hazardous Substance generated irrespective of the quantity permitted, they will have to obtain environmental clearance as per the EIA Notification 1994 as well as 2006. Further some period they were not having consent as well.
44. The counsel appearing for the applicant had argued that when the 4th respondent had decided to increase the quantity from the existing quantity, they had applied for environmental clearance for expansion and the same was granted by the authority which was being under challenge before this Tribunal as Appeal No. 33 of 2022. He had also argued that under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 unless the rights of the persons who were situated within the area were exempted or permitted continuance of the 4th respondent unit against the provisions of Wildlife (Protection), Act 1972 was illegal. They were not entitled to operate the unit within the 57 Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary in view of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. As there was no evidenced produced by the 4th respondent that their rights had been settled to enable them continue in that area. He had also relied on the decision reported in Tarun Bharat Sangh vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 SUPP 115 and Essar Oil Limited vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, reported (2004) 2 SCC 392: 2004 Online SC and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (99) vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 47: 2006 Online SC in support of their case. So he prayed for allowing the application.
45. The counsel appearing for Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change submitted that as per EIA Notification, 1994 all existing units which were established prior to 1994 were exempted from obtaining environmental clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification 1994. If they wanted to expand the unit or involving modernisation and change of products mix exceeding the threshold limit already permitted, then they will have to obtain environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 1994 and thereafter under the EIA Notification, 2006. But in the case of the 4th respondent they had increased the number of products but they had not exceeded the threshold limit permitted limit of manufacture limit 2016 as such they will not be falling under the environmental clearance regime till date. Once they had exceeded the permitted threshold limit of manufacture quantity they had applied for environment clearance for the project for expanded quantity and the same was granted by the issuing authorities under the Act. When the product quantity was increased as per the new provision they had applied for environment clearance and the clearance from National Board of Wildlife and also submitted the Wildlife Conservation Plan as mandated in the EIA Notification and OM issued and the same was under process. They were granted environmental clearance and that was challenged before the authorities. Further, when they had increased the number of products a study was conducted „Consent to Establish‟ and „Consent to Operate‟ was granted and it is on that basis that they were operating the unit. They prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.58
46. The counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board submitted reiterating their contentions raised in the report submitted by them that the 4th respondent required prior environmental clearance from the year 2005 onwards and operating their unit without obtaining environmental clearance was a clear violation of EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006. They will abide by the directions issued by this Tribunal of further action if any to be taken against the 4th respondent unit.
47. The counsel appearing for State department submitted that they are taking all necessary steps for protecting the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and it is for the regulating authorities to take appropriate action if there was any violation committed by the 4th respondent unit.
48. The counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that none of the allegations raised by the applicant either in the application or at the time of hearing having substance. They were operating the unit after obtaining necessary „Consent to Operate‟ and „Consent to Establish‟ from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board from the year 1992 - 93 onwards and there was no objections raised by the regulating authority that their operation was illegal.
49. Further the Joint Committee report also will go to show they were having all the necessary clearances and permissions and they were adopting Zero Liquid Discharge System. There was no possibility of any untreated effluent or sewage entering the water body affecting the quality of the Vedanthangal Lake. Further the lake was declared as Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and the unit was situated outside the lake area, but within 10km from the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary namely, the Lake which was declared by the State Government. None of the dictum relied on by the counsel appearing for the applicants are applicable to the facts of this case.
When they had increased the quantity, than the permitted quantity earlier then they had stayed for environmental clearance and also applied for clearance from the National Board for Wildlife to be obtained as per the OM issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and they had obtained for environmental clearance which was under challenge before the Tribunal be filing an Appeal No. 33 of 2022 by the same applicant 59 and this Tribunal had applied for Environmental Clearances granted and as such they were not manufacturing the expanded quantity but confined the existing quantity alone. The environmental compensation assessed by the committee was also without any basis as no violations were noted by the committee on account of their operation but in spite of that they had imposed environmental compensation which was not proper. They prayed for accepting their contentions and dismissal of the application.
50. Considered the pleadings, Joint Committee report, objections, oral submissions and written submission submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents.
51. The Points that arose for consideration:
(i) Whether the 4th respondent is operating their unit with all necessary clearances/permissions as required under the environmental laws,
(ii) Whether the 4th respondent had committed any violation of environmental laws in operating their pharmaceutical unit,
(iii) whether the 4th respondent is entitled to continue with the operation of the unit in the existing place in view of the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
(iv) Whether 4th respondent had committed any violation of the conditions and causing pollution to the Vedanthangal Lake and if so, what is the quantum of compensation payable by them,
(v) What are all the further directions, if any to be issued applying the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable development to protect environment and the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary.
(vi) Relief and costs.
Points:
52. The allegation in this application was that the 4th respondent unit was running without getting prior environmental clearance, though they had changed the product mix and increased the number of products, merely relying on the study conducted by the Anna University, Chennai where they have not considered the pollution load as such. They have not obtained any authorisation for the Hazardous Waste Management and they had obtained authorisation for Hazardous Waste Management only in 2016 and that too after new rules have come force. When considering the pollution load they had considered only the waste generation and 60 they had not considered about the emission etc., Further they have made modernisation by adding more machineries and they had obtained fresh „Consent to Establish‟ for that modernisation and they had started functioning only from 2005 onwards, though they had acquired the right of predecessor M/s. Pradeep Drug Company in the year 1999.
53. Further the 4th respondent unit was situated within Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary and as such under Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 they cannot operate their unit which will be treated as a polluting industry and it will amount to destruction which was prohibited. Further they were also discharging untreated effluents into the lake thereby causing pollution, but those things were denied by the 4th respondent and according to them, they were existing the unit prior to EIA Notification, 1994 and they have not exceeded their threshold permitted limit of manufacture, though they had increased the number of products and on the basis of the consent granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board they are operating their unit.
54. According to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board since they have gone for modernisation and pollution load had increased, they are liable to obtain Environmental Clearance. But according to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, since the 4th respondent unit was established prior to 1994 which certain quantity of manufacture, the 1994 notification will not be applicable to them in view of the explanation given subsequently, as though they have changed the product mix and manufacture of Synthetic organic chemicals, Bulk Drugs and Intermediates" and increased the products, but it was within the threshold limit and as such they were not liable for obtaining environmental clearance. But when they had increased the quantity from 35 MTA - 70MTA, they had applied for environmental clearance in the year 2016 and the same was granted subject to certain conditions and subject to the outcome of this proceedings. An appeal has been preferred against the same 61 as Appeal No. 33 of 2020 (SZ) and the same is pending before this Tribunal in court No. 2.
55. The 4th respondent predecessor, namely, M/s. Pradeep Drug Company were operating their unit prior to coming into force of EIA Notification 1994 where the Bulk Drugs and Intermediates manufacturing required prior environmental clearance and it was shown as Item 8 in the Schedule. It was also an admitted fact that M/s. Pradeep Drug Company had merged with 4th respondent unit/M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited as per the permission granted by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the year 1999. Thereafter, 4th respondent had applied for „Consent to Establish‟ in the year 2005 for the purpose of modernising the unit by increasing the machineries and they had abandoned the earlier product manufactured by their predecessor unit and they had changed the product and increased the number of products.
56. It was also an admitted fact that they had conducted the feasibility study through Anna University, Chennai and the Anna University had submitted the report which was produced along with the Joint Committee report and also by the 4th respondent where they had calculated the permitted waste generated on the basis of the new products and gave an opinion that the waste generation will not exceed the permitted waste as per the authorisation already granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. It is on that basis the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had granted the „Consent to Establish‟ and subsequently they had obtained „Consent to Operate‟ as well which continued upto 2018.
57. It was seen from the various reports submitted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the documents produced by the 4th respondent that the subsequent consent to operate was granted only in the year 2020 and there is a gap of nearly 2 years during which there was no „Consent to Operate‟ for the 4th respondent unit. This fact was not disputed as well. Further it 62 was also seen from the documents produced, that they had obtained the authorisation under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 only in the year 2016though they were dealing with the hazardous substance even prior to 2016 rules, which was covered by the earlier rule of Hazardous Waste (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and even prior to that by Hazardous Waste (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 1989 was in existence. There was no evidence to show that the 4th respondent or their predecessor had obtained any authorisation under the existing Hazardous Waste Management Rules, Admittedly the 4th respondent had obtained authorisation under the present rules namely in 2016 will go to show that they were handling hazardous waste earlier but they have not obtained any authorisation. Earlier the predecessors were only dealing with three products. But subsequently when the 4th respondent had taken over, they had increased the number of product to 10, but with a reduced capacity of 25MTA though the permitted quantity was 38.11. Under EIA Notification, 1994, which came into force from 27.01.1994 it was mentioned under rule, 2 that any person who desires to undertake a new project expansion or modernisation of existing industry or project listed in the schedule shall submit an application to the Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, New Delhi. There was nothing mentioned about what will amount to modernisation expansion and without any qualification that when an expansion or modernisation was intended, they will have to go for prior environmental clearance before undertaking the expansion or modernisation. But there was an explanation given by way of an Amendment Notification on 04.05.1994. It was mentioned that now, therefore in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 r/w class (d) of sub - rule (3) of rule (5) of the Environment (Protection), Rules , 1986, the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date 63 of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette expansion or modernisation of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new project listed in Schedule 1 of this notification shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure hereinafter specified in this notification.
58. It was also mentioned that they will have to obtain the certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in this regard till 2006 notification comes this is the procedure to be followed for the purpose of obtaining environmental clearance as far as the expansion or modernisation aspect is concerned. The only criteria that will be looked into increase in the pollution load, but when 2006 rules, came rule (2) has been substituted as follows:-
Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):
The following projects or activities shall require environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category „Á‟ in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category „B‟ in the said Schedule [and at District level, the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) for matters falling under Category „B2‟for mining of minor minerals in the said Schedule,] before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity;
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii) Any change in product-mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.
59. There is no dispute regarding the fact that for any new projects prior environmental clearance is required even as per 1994 notification and also as per 2006 notification. Under the 1994 notification if any modernisation or expansion had taken place, if 64 the pollution load did that not exceed the permitted load then existing they need not obtain environmental clearance for that purpose they had to obtain certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Then they are exempted from getting environmental clearance as regards the existing units are concerned But under the 2006 notification rules, it was mentioned that the expansion or modernisation of existing projects or activities listed to the Schedule to the notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, project or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule after expansion or modernisation. As regards the change of product - mix was concerned it was mentioned that any change in product mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in the schedule beyond the specified range. So only on exceeding the threshold limit already permitted or the specified range provided, they will have to obtain environmental clearance there is no necessity to obtain prior environmental clearance for the expansion of modernisation and change of product mix. But between EIA notification, 1994 and EIA notification 2006 if the pollution load exceeds, than the original permitted load then they are expected to obtain prior environmental clearance irrespective of the fact that they are within the threshold limit of production as permitted.
60. Further, Anna University, Chennai while considering the feasibility of expansion, they have only considered the waste generated of solid waste etc., only and they have not considered the emission raised from each point so as to ascertain the pollution load that is likely to be caused on account of the modernisation or expansion made. In this case admittedly, after they took over the industry from M/s. Pradeep Drug Company by virtue of the orders of the Court, they had made lot of improvements by changing the machine, upgrading the machines and adding more boilers for the purpose of meeting their needs 65 and also they had abandoned the existing products, namely 3 products and they had added 10 new products.
61. Further, they had applied for „Consent to Establish‟ at that time in 2004 and obtained „Consent to Establish‟ and then they had applied for „Consent to Operate‟ obtained in the year 2006. Even at that time the quantity of waste was in excess than the earlier, permitted quantity of waste water generated and effluent water etc., Further every time when the consent is being renewed, the waste generation and the quantity of waste was also increased, it is on that basis the „Consent to Operate‟ was granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. When the pollution load increases on account of the waste generation, than the original permitted quantity, then as per the explanation given by the Amendment Notification of 04.08.1994 to the EIA Notification 1994 published on 27.01.1994, the unit was expected to get environmental clearance for their project.
62. It is not known as to whether the Hazardous waste handling and disposal and transport authorisation was obtained by M/s. Pradeep Drug Company and also by M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited till 2016, when alone for the first time they had obtained the authorisation under the Hazardous Waste (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. So these aspects were not considered by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also when granting the consent to them. Even if the threshold limit of production is within the permitted limit when it existed, namely, within 38M tonnes p.a. and it was reduced to 25M tonnes p.a. that will not absolve the responsibility of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industrial Limited from obtaining environmental clearance for their project even in the year 2005and as the pollution load increased and there was a change in product mix than the permitted range under the existing rule by virtue of increasing the number of products.
63. Under such circumstances, the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Ministry of 66 Environment, Forests and Climate Change submitted that till 2016 when they had decided to increase the quantity of manufacture from the permitted quantity of 38 MT to 70 MT there was no necessity to obtain environmental clearance for their expansion cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. So there is some force in the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the applicant that form M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited took over M/s. Pradeep Drug Company, there is increase in the pollution load and there was an expansion as envisaged under the EIA Notification, 1994 and they ought to have obtained prior environmental clearance and without obtaining prior environmental clearance the operation of the 4th respondent unit is illegal. However, they had obtained environmental clearance for the expansion which is under challenge before this Tribunal in court No. 2 as Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ). Applying the doctrine of proportionality, instead of directing closure of the unit, we feel that directing them to pay an Environmental Compensation of Rs. 10 Crores Only/- an interim compensation of both these amounts will have to be paid by them. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to assess the environmental compensation for violation of operating the unit without environmental clearance from the date on which the pollution load exceeded than the original permitted load, then it could require Environmental Clearance even under EIA Notification 1994 applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board after giving proper notice to the project proponent giving them an opportunity to file their objections and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and if the amount exceeds the amount of Rs. Ten Crores Only/- an interim compensation as fixed by this Tribunal, then excess amount also will have to be recovered from the 4th respondent in accordance with law. But if the amount is less than the amount fixed by this Tribunal n Interim Compensation, then the Compensation has to be restricted to the Interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Crores Only/- assessed by this Tribunal for the violation of running the 67 unit without environmental clearance and the compensation fixed by the Joint Committee stated supra for non-compliance of certain disposal of methodology which resulted in degradation to the water quality and soil quality within the premises, though which had not affected the Vedanthangal Lake as there was no discharge of any trade effluent or waste into the lake was found by the Joint Committee as they were following the Zero Liquid Discharge System over and above the environment compensation for running the unit without environment clearance.
64. Under such circumstances, we direct the 4th respondent/M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to pay an Environmental Compensation of Rs. 10,58,20,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) and the 4th respondent is directed to pay this amount within a period of six (6) months to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and if the amount is not paid, then the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to recover the amount from them and this order will be subject to the orders, if any, to be passed by this Tribunal in Court No. 2 in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 filed by the appellant against the environmental clearance granted regarding the continuance of the unit.. The other aspects that had been raised by the counsel appearing for the applicant was that in view of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, once the wildlife sanctuary or Bird Sanctuary had been declared, then unless the claims are permitted rights are ascertained and accepted, no further right will accrue to the persons who are inside the Bird Sanctuary and they are not entitled to do any act which is likely to destruct will amount to bar under Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection), Act 1972 and the continuance of this unit in that area is against law.
65. Section 18 to 29 deal with the Sanctuaries in chapter (iv) under the caption "protected areas" in Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended in 2003 which reads as follows:-
Protected Area.68
18. Declaration of sanctuary.-- 2[(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any area other than an area comprised within any reserve forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary if it considers that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life or its environment.] (2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such area.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, it shall be sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.] [18A. Protection to sanctuaries.--(1) When the State Government declares its intention under sub-section (1) of section 18 to constitute any area, not comprised within any reserve forest or territorial waters under that sub-section, as a sanctuary, the provisions of sections 27 to 33A (both inclusive) shall come into effect forthwith.
(2) Till such time as the rights of affected persons are finally settled under sections 19 to 24 (both inclusive), the State Government shall make alternative arrangements required for making available fuel, fodder and other forest produce to the persons affected, in terms of their rights as per the Government records.] 18B. Appointment of Collectors.-- The State Government shall appoint, an officer to act as Collector under the Act, within ninety days of coming into force of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (16 of 2003), or within thirty days of the issue of notification under section 18, to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of rights of any person in or over the land comprised within the limits of the sanctuary which may be notified under sub-section (1) of section 18.
19. Collector to determine rights.
[When a notification has been issued under section 18,] the Collector shall inquire into, and determine, the existence, nature and extent of the rights of any person in or over the land comprised within the limits of the sanctuary.
20. Bar of accrual of rights.
After the issue of a notification under section 18, no right shall be acquired in, on or over the land comprised within the limits of the area specified in such notification, except by succession, testamentary or intestate.
21. Proclamation by Collector.
When a notification has been issued under section 18, the Collector shall1[within a period of sixty days] publish in the regional language in every town and village in or in the neighbourhood of the area comprised therein, a proclamation--
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and the limits of the sanctuary; and 69
(b) requiring any person, claiming any right mentioned In section 19, to prefer before the Collector, within two months from the date of such proclamation, a written claim in the prescribed form, specifying the nature and extent of such right with necessary details and the amount and particulars of compensation, if any, claimed in respect thereof.
22. Inquiry by Collector.
The Collector shall, after service of the prescribed notice upon the claimant, expeditiously inquire into--
(a) the claim preferred before him under clause (b) of section 21, and
(b) the existence of any right mentioned in section 19 and not claimed under clause (b) of section 21, so far as the same may be ascertainable from the records of the State Government and the evidence of any person acquainted with the same.
23.Powers of Collector.
For the purpose of such inquiry, the Collector may exercise the following powers, namely:--
(a) the power to enter in or upon any land and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same or to authorise any other officer to do so;
(b) the same powers as are vested in a civil court for the trial of suits.
24. Acquisition of rights.
(1) In the case of a claim to a right in or over any land referred to in section 19, the Collector shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part.
(2) If such claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Collector may either-
(a) exclude such land from the limits of the proposed sanctuary, or
(b) proceed to acquire such land or rights, except where by an agreement between the owner of such land or holder of rights and the Government, the owner or holder of such rights has agreed to surrender his rights to the Government, in or over such land and on payment of such compensation, as is provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894). 1[(c) allow, in consultation with the Chief Wild Life Warden, the continuation of any right of any person in or over any land within the limits of the sanctuary.]
25. Acquisition proceedings.
(1) For the purpose of acquiring such land, or rights in or over such land,
(a) the Collector shall be deemed to be a Collector, proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894);
(b) the claimant shall be deemed to be a person interested and appearing before him in pursuance of a notice given under section 9 of that Act;
(c) the provisions of the sections, preceding section 9 of that Act, shall be deemed to have been complied with;
70(d) where the claimant does not accept the award made in his favour ha the matter of compensation, he shall be deemed, within the meaning of section 18 of that Act, to be a person interested who has not accepted the award, and shall be entitled to proceed to claim relief against the award under the provisions of Part III of that Act;
(e) the Collector, with the consent of the claimant, or the court, with the consent of both the parties, may award compensation in land or money or partly in land and partly in money; and
(f) in the case of the stoppage of a public way or a common pasture, the Collector may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, provide for an alternative public way or common pasture, as far as may be practicable or convenient.
(2) The acquisition under this Act of any land or interest therein shall be deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose.
25.A.Time-limit for completion of acquisition proceedings. 1[25A. Time-limit for completion of acquisition proceedings.--(1) The Collector shall, as far as possible, complete the proceedings under sections 19 to 25 (both inclusive), within a period of two years from the date of notification of declaration of sanctuary under section 18.
(2) The notification shall not lapse if, for any reasons, the proceedings are not completed within a period of two years.]
26. Delegation of Collector's powers.
The State Government may, by general or special order, direct that the Powers exercisable or the functions to be performed by the Collector under sections 19 to 25 (both inclusive) may be exercised and performed by such other officer as may be specified in the order.
Declaration of area as sanctuary.
1[26A. Declaration of area as sanctuary.-- (1) When--
(a) a notification has been issued under section 18 and the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and all claims, if any, made in relation to any land in an area intended to be declared as a sanctuary, have been disposed of by the State Government; or
(b) any area comprised within any reserve forest or any part of the territorial waters, which is considered by the State Government to be of adequate ecological faunal floral geomorphological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life or its environment, is to be included in a sanctuary, the State Government shall issue a notification specifying the limits of the area which shall be comprised within the sanctuary and declare that the said area shall be sanctuary on and from such date as may be specified in the notification:
Provided that where any part of the territorial waters is to be so included, prior concurrence of the Central Government shall be obtained by the State Government:71
Provided further that the limits of the area of the territorial waters to be included in the sanctuary shall be determined in consultation with the Chief Naval Hydrographer of the Central Government and after taking adequate measures to protect the occupational interests of the local fishermen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), the right of innocent passage of any vessel or boat through the territorial waters shall not be affected by the notification issued under sub-section (1).
2[(3)No alteration of the boundaries of a sanctuary shall be made by the State Government except on a recommendation of the National Board.]
27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary.
(1) No person other than,--
(a) a public servant on duty,
(b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary,
(c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary,
(d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and
(e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under section 28. (2) Every person shall, so long, as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound--
(a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act;
(b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender;
(c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer takes charge thereof;
(d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information; and
(e) to assist any forest officer, Chief Wild Life. Warden, Wild Life Warden or police officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence. 1[(3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary- mark.
(4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.]
28. Grant of permit.
72(1) The Chief Wild Life Warden may, on application, grant to any person a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary for all or any of the following purposes, namely:--
(a) investigation or study of wild life and purposes ancillary or incidental thereto;
(b) photography;
(c) scientific research;
(d) tourism;
(e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary. (2) A permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary shall be issued subject to such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit. 1[29. Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit.-- No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wild life including forest produce from a sanctuary or destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into or outside the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden, and no such permit shall be granted unless the State Government being satisfied in consultation with the Board that such removal of wild life from the sanctuary or the change in the flow of water into or outside the sanctuary is necessary for the improvement and better management of wild life therein, authorises the issue of such permit:
Provided that where the forest produce is removed from a sanctuary the same may be used for meeting the personal bona fide needs of the people living in and around the sanctuary and shall not be used for any commercial purpose.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, grazing or movement of livestock permitted under clause (d) of section 33 shall not be deemed to be an act prohibited under this section.]
66. Section 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 25 A deal with the procedure for declaration, settlement of rights and after rejection what is the nature of steps to be taken by the Collector for acquisition of the land which is not a Government land, not in the reserved forest, not in the possession of the private persons which were made part of the declaration of the Sanctuaries. Section 20 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 deals with bar of accrual of rights which says, "after the issue of notification under Section 18, no right in on over the land comprised within the limits of the area specified notification except by succession, testamentary or intestate. There is a bar for acquisition of new rights in the land after declaration of Sanctuary has been made under Section 18 of the Act. Section 29 deals with 73 Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit for doing certain activities and permission had been obtained from the authorities under the Act, namely, Chief Wildlife Warden and it was mentioned therein that no such permission shall be granted unless the State Government being satisfied in consultation with the Board that such removal of wild life from the sanctuary or change in the flow of water into or outside the sanctuary is necessary for improvement and better management of wild life therein, authorises the issue of such permit. Provided that where the forest produce was removed from a sanctuary the same may be used for meeting the personal bona fide needs of the people living in and around the sanctuary and shall not be used for any commercial purpose.
67. In the decision reported in Essar Oil Limited vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 392: 2004 Online SC, it has been observed that Section 29 bars anyone from completely, irreparably and irreversibly putting end wildlife or to the habitat in sanctuary.
The word „removal‟ would have the same connotation. However, "exploitation‟ or using the wildlife for any purpose, although it may not lead to extinction of wildlife, or "damage" which may not cause any irreparable injury to the habitat, are forbidden nevertheless. Further it is for the wildlife board to consider all these aspects and this Tribunal cannot go into the question as Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is not coming within the purview of this Tribunal under the statute enumerated in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
68. Further, it is seen from the nonfiction issued that the lake was having an extent of 73 hectares in survey no. 220 and 5km around the same and no survey numbers of the land which were coming within 5km was mentioned therein, admittedly most of them are private properties. Even as per Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 if it is in the possession in the private party and if it is not excluded from the declared land, then they will have to adopt the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation for those persons who are occupying the land.
7469. There is no evidence either adduced from the side of the applicant or from the side of the official respondents that any such procedures had been adopted in this case and the right to the parties have been settled and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and the persons were paid compensation and steps have been taken for evicting those persons. Till they are evicted from the property by the process known to law, it cannot be said that their continuation is illegal. Further if any expansion of the existing activity or commercial activity will have to be done within the 5 km area which was made part of the Wild life sanctuary by virtue of the notification,, then it can be done only on the basis of the permission obtained from the authorities mentioned under Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. That process is pending and that has to be considered by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) in court No. 2 filed against the environmental clearance granted for the expansion and as such we are not going in to this aspect in this case and this will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) pending before Court No. 2 of this Tribunal.
70. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of with following directions:-
i. The 4th respondent is expected to obtain environmental clearance for their expansion done between 1994 and 2006 by virtue of the provisions of EIA Notification 1994 and as such without environmental clearance their continuance of the activity is illegal, but since they had obtained environmental clearance for expansion of the enhanced quantity which is the subject matter in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) we are not ordering the closure of the unit for the time being. This aspect can be considered by the Tribunal which is dealing with Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) in Court No.2 against the grant of environmental clearance for the expansion of the 4th respondent unit.75
ii. This Tribunal confirms the environmental compensation of Rs. 58,20,000/- (Rs. Fifty Eight Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) imposed by the Joint Committee for certain violations noted of contaminating the ground water and soil within the premises due to some in- efficient mechanism provided and apart from paying this amount. We direct them to pay an Interim Compensation of Rs. 10 Crores Only/ Further, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to assess the environmental compensation for violation of operating the unit without environmental clearance from the date on which the pollution load exceeded than the original permitted load, then it could requires Environmental Clearance even under EIA Notification 1994 applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board after giving proper notice to the project proponent giving them an opportunity to file their objections and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and if the amount exceeds the amount of Rs. Ten Crores Only/- an interim compensation as fixed by this Tribunal, then excess amount also will have to be recovered from the 4th respondent in accordance with law. But if the amount is less than the amount fixed by this Tribunal as Interim Compensation, then the Compensation has to be restricted to the Interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Crores Only/- assessed by this Tribunal for the violation of running the unit without environmental clearance and both these amounts will have to be paid by them to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of six (6) months and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to recover the amount from the 4th respondent unit in accordance with law.
iii. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on recovery of the amount in consultation with the Principal Chief 76 Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force) and Chief Wildlife Warden and Additional Chief Secretary to Government for Environment, Forests and Climate Change is directed to prepare an action plan for utilisation of the amount for the benefit of the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary in a scientific manner. iv. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the operation of the 4th respondent unit and if there is any violation of conditions imposed or non-compliance of the directions found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent unit including imposition of environmental compensation and other coercive steps, if any, required as provided under the respective statutes in accordance with law.
v. The 4th respondent is also directed to comply with all the conditions and provide all pollution control mechanism till continuance of the unit is decided by the National Board for Wildlife and also by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) pending before Court No. 2 of this Tribunal.
71. The Points are answered accordingly:
72. In the result, the application is allowed in part and disposed of with following directions:
1) The 4th respondent is expected to obtain environmental clearance for their expansion done between 1994 and 2006 by virtue of the provisions of EIA Notification 1994 and as such without environmental clearance their continuance of the activity is illegal, but since they had obtained environmental clearance for expansion of the enhanced quantity which is the subject matter in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) we are not ordering the closure of the unit for the time being. This aspect can be considered by the Tribunal which is dealing with Appeal No. 33 of 2022 in Court No.2 against the grant of environmental clearance for the expansion of the 4th respondent unit.77
2) This Tribunal confirms the environmental compensation of Rs.
58,20,000/- (Rs. Fifty Eight Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) imposed by the Joint Committee for certain violations noted of contaminating the ground water and soil within the premises due to some in efficient mechanism provided and apart from paying this amount. We direct them to pay an Interim Compensation of Rs. 10 Crores Only/ Further, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to assess the environmental compensation for violation of operating the unit without environmental clearance from the date on which the pollution load exceeded than the original permitted load, then it could requires Environmental Clearance even under EIA Notification 1994 applying the formula evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board after giving proper notice to the project proponent, giving them an opportunity to file their objections and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and if the amount exceeds the amount of Rs. Ten Crores Only/- an interim compensation as fixed by this Tribunal, then excess amount also will have to be recovered from the 4th respondent in accordance with law. But if the amount is less than the amount fixed by this Tribunal as Interim Compensation, then the Compensation has to be restricted to the Interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Crores Only/- assessed by this Tribunal for the violation of running the unit without environmental clearance and both these amounts will have to be paid by them to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board within a period of six (6) months and if the amount is not paid within that time, then the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to recover the amount from the 4th respondent unit in accordance with law
3) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on recovery of the amount in consultation with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force) and Chief Wildlife Warden and Additional Chief Secretary to Government for Environment, Forests and Climate Change is directed to prepare an action plan for utilisation of the amount for the benefit of the Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary in a scientific manner.
784) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the operation of the 4th respondent unit and if there is any violation of conditions imposed or non- compliance of the directions found, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent unit including imposition of environmental compensation and other coercive steps, if any, required as provided under the respective statutes in accordance with law.
5) The 4th respondent is also directed to comply with all the conditions and provide all pollution control mechanism till continuance of the unit is decided by the National Board for Wildlife and also by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (SZ) pending before Court No. 2 of this Tribunal.
6) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear the respective cost in the Original Application.
7) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman-Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) and Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Tamil Nadu, Additional Chief Secretary to Government for Environment, Forests and Climate Change for their information and also for compliance of the direction.
73. With the above observations and directions, the original application is disposed of.
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) O.A. No. 88/2020 29.09.2022. Sr. 79