National Green Tribunal
Saraswathi Excel Matriculation School ... vs The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu ... on 21 December, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 112 of 2022 (SZ)
&
I.A. No. 173 of 2022(SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Saraswathi Excel Matriculation School,
Rep by its Correspondent,
M. Rajasekaran,
Thiruvannamalai Road,
Sozhaganur- 605 402.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
3. The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
4. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Villupura, Villpuram District.
5. The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.
6. The Deputy Director of Agriculture,
(Plant Protection),
State Licensing Authority,
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.
7. The Tahsildar,
Vikkiravandi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
8. M/s. Sri Krithika Agro Chemicals,
No. 23, Hospital Road,
(Opposite Telephone Exchange),
Vandimedu,
Villupuram- 605 602.
9. The Secretary,
Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIB & RC)
Directorate of Plant Protection Quarntine & Storage,
Old C.G.O. Complex, NH IV,
Faridabad, Haryana- 121001.
...Respondent(s)
1
For Applicant(s): Mr. B. Sundarapandiyan, Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan
and Mr. A. Velmurugan.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sai. Sathya Jith for R1 and R4.
Dr. D. Shanmughanathan for R2, R3, R5 to R7.
Mr. Senthil Kumar for R8.
Mr. S. Janarthanam for R9.
Judgment Reserved on: 15th December, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 21st December, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The applicant, which is a school, is seeking a direction to take action against the 8th respondent, who is a manufacturer of agro chemicals, in the name and style of M/s Krithika Agro Chemicals for manufacturing or using Phorate which is a banned chemical as in insecticide. In S.O. No. 3951(E) dated 08.08.2018, the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare had issued a notification prohibiting a list of pesticides mentioned therein. Phorate is one such chemical which was banned in the following words:
"(i) No new certificate of registration to manufacture shall be issued after publication of this Order.
(ii) No person shall import, manufacture or formulate Phorate with effect from the 1st January, 2019.
(iii) the use of Phorate shall be completely banned with effect from 31st December, 2020.
(iv) It is very toxic to aquatic organism, hence a cautionary statement should be incorporated on label and leaflets that it is toxic to aquatic organism, hence should not be used near water bodies, aquaculture or pisciculture area.
(v) A warning may incorporated in the label and leaflet stating that this product is toxic to honey bees so do not spray during active honey bees foraging period of the day.
(vi) A cautionary statement should incorporate in label and leaflet that this product is toxic to birds."
2. The complaint of the applicant is that the 8th respondent is using the said prohibited chemical spreading noxious gases in the air in and around five km range from the factory. The said gas from the prohibited chemical affects the children, teachers and the other public living around that area resulting in acute breathing problem, eye irritation and skin 2 diseases. Further even the birds and animals are affected. A representation was earlier given by the applicant to the respondents 1 to 7 and the 4th respondent, who is the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, has inspected the premises and has found that 8th respondent, is running the factory by violating the rules and regulations by not using pollution control devices. In fact a show-cause notice dated 30.12.2021 was also issued and called for an explanation. In support of the claim of the applicant, the applicant had produced the outer cover of the 8th respondent‟s product Lion Krithi Acephate 75 and Lion Krithi Phorate. On the cover it is conspicuously printed that phorate 10% C.G. Granules is used.
3. After notice was issued, the Pollution Control Board had filed a report dated 13.11.2022 wherein it is stated that 8th respondent was inspected on 25.11.2021 and observed that the air pollution control measures were not in operation and the unit had not obtained renewal of the consent order. Hence the show-cause notice was issued on 30.11.2021 for the above said violations. The Pollution Control Board also received the response from the 8th respondent dated 09.12.2021 stating that it was carrying out rectification works on air pollution control measures and solar evaporation pan and the same would be completed in a month‟s time.
4. Once again when the Pollution Control Board received a representation from the applicant-school on 15.07.2022 complaining that the 8th respondent is processing the banned chemical causing air pollution. The Pollution Control Board inspected the premises on 27.07.2022 and observed the following:
(i) The unit was in operation. The unit has provided wet scrubber with stack and was in operation.
(ii) There was no odour nuisance observed during inspection.
(iii) The unit has obtained certificate from the Government for handling raw materials for the production of pesticides in its formulation unit.
(iv) The unit has not utilized any banned raw materials for its pesticide formulation unit.
5. In the meanwhile, the respondent-unit also had filed an application for renewal of consent from Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for 06 products only and stated in its letter dated 02.09.2022 that they have removed one of the product, namely, Phorate-10% CG-4000 kg/month in the application as it is a banned substance. As there was also no pending complaint against 3 the unit the action on the show-cause was dropped and renewal of consent order was issued to the respondent-unit on 05.09.2022 which is valid upto 31.03.2026.
6. In the meanwhile, since the applicant had filed before this Tribunal, the Pollution Control Board once again visited the 8th respondent unit on 26.10.2022 and observed as follows:
(i) The unit was not in operation at the time of inspection.
(ii) The air pollution control measures provided by the unit were in operable condition.
(iii) The unit was not carrying out manufacturing of phorate.
7. The applicant had sent a complaint to the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection) in this regard. The Deputy Director of Agriculture also has filed its report submitting that an inspection was conducted on 15.10.2022 and issued show-cause notice on 18.10.2022 for the following violations:
(i) Production of banned pesticides phorate etc.
(ii) Not maintaining the records and registers.
(iii) Not keeping the safety aids in place.
(iv) Quality control lab is not functioning in the unit.
(v) Objection is raised by the people in nearby areas.
8. The 6th respondent filed an additional report dated 02.12.2022.
In the report it is stated that a surprise inspection was conducted on 10.11.2022 and 29.11.2022 which states that presently there was no activity going on in the 8th respondent premises.
9. The 8th respondent has filed his response. The 8th respondent has categorically denied that his unit was manufacturing any prohibited chemicals, thereby causing air and water pollution. He also stated that their agro chemical unit is operating effluent treatment plant continuously and effectively as per the standards prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The entire trade effluent is disposed in the solar evaporation pan. Discharge of air emissions are managed by installing wet scrubber with stack 08 meters height from the ground level. The 8th respondent also categorically denied that they are manufacturing or using any prohibited chemicals much less Phorate. The 8th respondent unit is categorised as „Orange‟ category by the 4th respondent which is being functioning from 2007 without any complaints. It is a micro level enterprise. According to the 8th respondent, the photographs submitted by the applicant though the cover is of their unit, the date and seal are fabricated for the purpose of the case. It says that 4 after the ban of the particular chemical, the 8th respondent has completely stopped the production of Lion Krithi Phorate 10 G as it contains composition of Phorate. Other product, namely, Krithi Acephate 75% is not a banned chemical and there is no impediment for the 8th respondent to manufacture the same. As the chemical Phorate in all its form is banned by the Government of India from 08.08.2018 and there is a total ban from 31.12.2020. The Phorate is not even available for anyone to procure it much less for a small unit like the 8th respondent. According to the 8th respondent after the outbreak of CoVID-19 and the financial crisis, the unit has not been functioning and it was not operating at all. Hence the allegation that Phorate has been used itself is incorrect.
10. From the records, it can be seen that the 8th respondent has been having his manufacturing unit from the year 2007 and obtained certificate of registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 periodically. The 8th respondent has also got his renewal of consent to operate the plant and for discharge of trade effluent under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on 05.09.2022 which is valid till 31.03.2026 on those conditions which are imposed therein. The Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu has also issued the manufacturing license for the insecticides on 01.09.2016. The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department also has granted fire service license on 07.03.2022 to the 8th respondent on certain conditions for one year.
11. Though, the apprehension of the applicant that usage of Phorate which is a banned chemical may be harmful to the human beings, on perusal of the records, it is found that the 8th respondent has not been operating his unit during the COVID period and he had obtained the renewal of consent to operate only in the month of September, 2022 which is valid till end of 2026. As has been rightly stated by the 8th respondent even if he is to use the Phorate in the insecticide which he is manufacturing, unless it is available it is impossible to use the same in the process. As there is a total ban of Phorate in terms of import, manufacture or formulate Phorate from 01.01.2019, it is impossible for him to obtain the same and use it in the manufacturing process. However, the 8th respondent is directed to strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by the various licensing authorities including that of the Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board is directed to inspect the unit periodically at least once in 06 months to keep a check on the industry and ensure that 5 they comply with all the conditions imposed. Besides not using any banned substance, as per notification of Government of India, the 8th respondent is directed to follow all the other precautionary measures as have been advised by the Pollution Control Board.
12. In view of the above discussions, the Original Application is disposed.
13. In view of the disposal of the Original Application, I.A. No. 173 of 2022 also stands disposed of.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.112/2022(SZ)& I.A. No. 173/2022(Z) 21st December, 2022. (AM) 6 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) O.A. No. 112 of 2022 Saraswathi Excel Matriculation School, Vs. The Member Secretary, TNPCB and Ors.
O.A. No. 112/2022(SZ)& I.A. No. 112/2022(SZ) 21st November, 2022. (AM) 7