National Green Tribunal
Shalbhjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2024
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 173/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHALBHJIT SINGH
Village- Haibatpur, Post Office-Mubarikpur
Tehsil- Derabassi District- SAS Nagar,
Mohali, State of Punjab
...Applicant
Verses
1. MEMBER SECRETARY
Punjab State Pollution Control Board
Vatavaran Bhavan,
Nabha Road, Patiala, Punjab-147001
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
District Administrative Complex,
Sector-76 SAS Nagar-160055
3. M/S NECTOR LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED
Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi,
District SAS Nagar, Mohali- 140507
...Respondent(s)
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Shisham Pradhan and Ms. Atika Singh, Advocates
with Mr. G.D. Garg (through VC), RO, Punjab Pollution Control Board
Mr. Atul V. Sood and Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Advocates for M/s Nector Life
Sciences Ltd. (through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
1
RESERVED ON: MAY 15, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 21, 2024
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') was registered under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act, 2010') exercising suo-moto jurisdiction on a letter petition dated 05.11.2022 sent by Shalabhjeet Singh, resident of village Haibatpur, Tehsil-Derabassi, District-SAS Nagar, Mohali complaining that M/s Nector Life Sciences Limited is a Pharmaceutical unit at Village Haibatpur, Tehsil-Derabassi, District-SAS Nagar, Mohali. It is discharging highly polluted chemical effluent in the agricultural field of village, causing damage to crops and land. Complaint was supported with certain photographs showing discharge of polluted effluents in open field causing damage to land, soil and environment.
2. Tribunal's Order dated 28.04.2023: Tribunal took cognizance on 28.04.2023 and after being satisfied prima facie that a substantial question relating to environment has arisen due to implementation of Scheduled Enactments under NGT Act, 2010, found it appropriate to obtain a factual report and constituted a Joint Committee comprising Punjab State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PSPCB') and District Magistrate, SAS Nagar Mohali. Committee was directed to visit, collect relevant information and submit factual Report within two months.
2 Joint Committee Report dated 15.07.2023:
3. Pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2023, Joint Committee submitted Report dated 15.07.2023. Report shows that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Derabassi and Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, SAS Nagar were members of Joint Committee who visited site of M/s. Nector Life Sciences Limited (Unit II) on 23.06.2023, carried out stack emission monitoring of the boilers installed with the parameters of industry and also carried out water sampling of Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'ETP'), drain passing adjoining to industry, Multi Effect Evaporator (hereinafter referred to as 'MEE') and piezometer and recorded its observations, recommendations and actions to be taken by PSPCB as under:
"The major observations of the Joint Committee are listed herein below:
1. The industry has obtained Consent to Operate under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide nо. CTOW/Renewal/SAS/2022/20441856 dated 20.12.2022 and under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide nо. CTOA/Renewal/SAS/2022/20443954 dated 20.12.2022 from the Punjab Pollution Control Board, which has expired on 30.06.2023.
2. The industry has obtained authorization under HWM Rules, 2016 vide no. HWM/renew/SAS/2022/16912809 dated 31.08.2022 from the Punjab Pollution Control Board which has expired on 31.03.2023.
3. The industry Nectar Lifesciences; Unit-II which is a bulk drugs manufacturing unit was in operation. The industry is also having its sister concern company involved in manufacturing of bulk drugs located in Village Haripur Hinduan namely Nectar Lifesciences, Unit-I and the effluent generated from this company is also treated along with its own effluent. The effluent of unit no.1 is being carried through underground/overhead pipeline to unit no.II for treatment.
4. The industry has installed 3 no. boilers, 2 no. boiler of capacity 40 TPH (with Economiser, APH & ESP as APCD) each which were in operation and 1 no. standby boiler @ 25 TPH (Trima cyclone + Bag house filter as APCD) which was not in operation during visit.3
The industry is using rice husk, wood chips, sarkanda and wood chopped nada as fuel. The industry was found to be dumping fresh boiler ash within its premises as landfill in non- compliance of hearing decision dated 11.11.2022. During visit, the stack emission monitoring of both the boiler of 40 TPH capacity was carried out and the results were found to be within the prescribed limits. As per OCEMS reading checked, the reading was 43 mg/Nm3 and 67 mg/Nm3. Hence, the OCEMS needs to be calibrated.
5. The industry has provided 3 no. Solvent Recovery Plants (SRPs), which were in operation during visit. The industry has provided Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) meters with the SRPs, but no Total Organic Carbon (TOC) meter has not been installed in compliance of SOP of CPCB. Large no. of spent solvent drums were found lying in open and some of the drums were even corroded.
6. The industry has installed 2 no. borewells and has provided flow meter over them.
7. The industry has installed 2 no. Piezometers, however, only 1 piezometer installed near admin building was in functional condition and the other is in non-functional condition. Sample from the piezometer was collected and the results were found to be within the prescribed limits.
8. The industry has installed CCTV cameras at the treated water outlet and on the storm water drain further leading to garland drain running at back side of the industry, however the same is yet to be linked with the PPCB server.
9. The industry has installed 1 no. incinerator of capacity 4.22 TPD with quencher, scrubber as APCD and followed by stack of adequate height, but the incinerator was not in operation during visit. No arrangement for disposal of scrubber water into ETP has been provided. The industry has not installed OCEMS on the Incinerator. Huge quantity of hazardous waste of category 36.2 i.e. filter pads were found lying near the incinerator area in open and not in a dedicated hazardous waste room. The industry has not made any provision for drying the sludge left at the bottom of scrubber water tank.
10. The industry has provided a High TDS Effluent Storage Tank of 300 KL capacity for the storage of High TDS effluent generated from its Oral-D section, Oral-F section, Oral-C section, Oral-H 4 section, SRP-A, SRP-B and SRP-C which was found to be leaking and the waste-water was found collected on ground.
11. The industry has installed 2 MEEs of capacity 350 KLD & 90 KLD for the treatment of High TDS effluent generated from its process, reactor washing, water distilled from SRP tanks, RO reject and Mother Liqour (ML) of this industry as well as its sister concern company Nectar (Unit- 1) premises and Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) of capacity 350 KLD was in operation. The industry has not done color coding of the pipeline carrying High TDS effluent to MEE. There was leakage in glands of the motors of the pipeline carrying MEE concentrate to Agitated Thin Film Drier (ATFD).
Sample was collected from MEE feed, MEE condensate and MEE concentrate and as per analysis results, the MEE is not operated efficiently.
12. ATFD was in operation during visit. The industry has also provided a flexible line for carrying the MEE concentrate to ATFD feed tank.
13. The industry has installed ETP of 1500 KLD capacity based on physico-chemical and biological treatment for the treatment of low TDS effluent generated from floor washing, cooling tower blow down, boiler blow down, domestic effluent generated from this industry and its sister concern (Unit-I), MEE condensate and line coming from storm water drain collection pit. The treated water is used for cooling tower & gardening. Sample of RO permeate was collected and results are within prescribed limits of the Board.
14. The industry has provided hazardous waste room for storage of hazardous waste of category 5.1, 36.2, 36.1, 28.1, 28.3, 37.2 and 35.3 having compartments. The walls of the hazardous waste room were damped from inside, no proper stacking of the Hazardous Waste (HW) was observed, date of generation of HW not mentioned on bags, bag number was not mentioned on bags and the quantity of HW was also not mentioned on bags. The industry has not provided dedicated room for storage of hazardous waste of category 33.1 and same was found stored in open.
15. The site of old ETP which has now been made redundant by the industry was also visited and it was observed that the collection tank of capacity 90 KL of ETP was filled with effluent and sample was collected from the collection tank and as per results the collection tanks consists of LTDS effluent. The motor for disposing off the wastewater to the 5 newly installed ETP was not in operation. The other components of the old ETP were also filled with effluent and sludge and the representative was asked to treat the same.
16. A large no. of solvent drums and empty drums were found lying on the ground and some of the empty drums were also found lying in the area. Most of the tanks filled with solvent were found to be corroded.
17. The industry has provided a collection pit near the MEE area as an arrangement for storage of spillage effluent mixed with storm water from where the industry pumps the water back to ETP as per requirement.
18. The samples of the drain coming from village Haripur Hinduan upstream and downstream of the industry were collected to adjudge any contamination due to industrial discharge. As per analysis results, the contamination in the drain at the upstream of the industry is due to domestic effluent and at the downstream side of the industry there is no significant increase in parameters after the drain passes the industry which shows that there is no contamination due to industrial effluent.
19. The industry has developed plantation area as per karnal technology near Admin Building measuring 4.5 acres and at the backside of the industry measuring 44 acres. The plantation area was found dry. Besides the plantation area developed as per karnal technology, the industry has also developed green area measuring 13 acres near the admin building and 7 acres at the backside of the industry.
20. No illegal discharge of effluent by the industry into any agricultural fields was observed.
4.0 Observations and Recommendations of Joint Committee The industry was found in non-compliance of many pollution norms as specified in observations above. Their authorization under Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016 from the Punjab Pollution Control Board had already expired on 31.03.2023 and Consent to Operate under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 has also expired on 30.06.2023. Specific mention for observation vide point no. 4, 5, 9, 10 and 14 may be taken into consideration. With respect to the specific points of the current complaint, no illegal discharge of chemical effluent into any agricultural field was observed during this visit of the Joint 6 Committee. However, keeping in mind, the other discrepancies, frequent visits and samplings will be planned of the industry for future investigation and compliance of norms. 5.0. Action for other violations by PPCB On the basis of the violations of the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as observed by the Joint Committee during inspection, action is being taken by PPCB against the industry."
4. Tribunal's Order dated 17.07.2023: Report dated 15.07.2023 was considered by Tribunal on 17.07.2023. Noticing that industry was non- compliant in respect of environmental norms and consent orders, Tribunal found it appropriate to direct PSPCB to ensure that Proponent i.e., concerned industry should operate on Zero Liquid Discharge (hereinafter referred to as 'ZLD') mode and for this purpose, necessary action should be taken by PSPCB. It was specifically said by Tribunal that it shall be ensured that there is no discharge of polluted water into open land or any water body and in case, any violation is found, Environmental Compensation in accordance with parameters laid down by Tribunal as also prescribed by CPCB shall be computed, assessed and realised as per law from industry concerned. A further action taken report was required to be filed by concerned authority i.e., PSPCB. Action taken Report dated 12.10.2023 filed on 13.10.2023 by PSPCB:
5. Pursuant to order dated 17.07.2023, PSPCB has filed action taken Report dated 12.10.2023 stating that industry has obtained Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as 'CTO') under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act, 1974') vide letter dated 20.12.2022 and under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act, 1981') vide 7 letter dated 20.12.2022 from PSPCB. Both the said CTOs expired on 30.06.2023. The unit was continuously functioning without CTO, hence notice under Section 33A of Water Act, 1974 and 31A of Air Act, 1981 was issued to the said industry giving opportunity of hearing before Chairman, PSPCB on 01.09.2023. Oral hearing was conducted on 01.09.2023 and Chairman took following decision:
"a) Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office SAS Nagar shall immediately encash bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs which is already deposited with the Board by the industry as an assurance and send the report thereafter.
b) The industry shall submit a new bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs as an assurance to comply environmental laws all the times.
c) The industry shall get the re-verification of premises from Director of Factories, Punjab and shall submit certificate to the effect that measures provided by the industry are adequate and all safety measure are in place to avoid any such incident in future within one month.
d) The industry shall get safety audit of its premises from institute of repute and shall submit the report within one month.
e) The industry shall provide additional precautionary measures such as handheld gas analyzers and highly sensitive gas sensors on overall boundary wall of the unit with siren system.
f) Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, SAS Nagar shall visit the industry in the last week of September, 2023 to verify the contention of the industry w.r.t various compliance made by it and carry out complete monitoring of ETP, APCDs & groundwater and thereafter to send the consolidated report alongwith concrete recommendations so as to enable the Competent Authority to proceed further in the matter."
6. It is further said that pursuant to above decision of Chairman, PSPCB, bank guarantee of Rs.10 lakhs was encashed and industry was directed to finance a new bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs as an assurance 8 to comply with environmental laws. The proceedings of hearing conducted on 21.09.2023 were communicated to industry concerned vide letter dated 22.09.2023.
7. It is also said that now industry shall be visited in October 2023 to carry out complete monitoring of ETP, APCDs and ground water.
8. Tribunal's Order dated 16.10.2023: Report dated 12.10.2023 was considered by Tribunal on 16.10.2023. Tribunal observed that Report did not mention about ZLD whether achieved by industry or not and Report also did not show any effective action taken by Statutory Regulator. Since there was no formal impleadment of the parties, Tribunal directed impleadment of the following as respondents:
(i) Member Secretary, Punjab Pollution Control Board;
(ii) District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali and;
(iii) M/s Nectar Life Sciences Limited, Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
9. Notices were issued to said respondents with direction to file their responses before the next date of hearing.
Report dated 04.01.2024 filed by PSPCB:
10. Pursuant to order dated 16.10.2023, PSPCB through Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Mohali submitted Status Report dated 04.01.2024. It is said that industry applied for renewal of CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. PSPCB however, issued notice for refusal of renewal of CTO affording opportunity of personal hearing on 17.11.2023 before Chairman, PSPCB. Opportunity was availed by industry and hearing took place on 17.11.2023 before Chairman, PSPCB. 9 Proceedings were attended by Sh. H.P Singh, Director and Sh. Tripathi Rao, Deputy General Manager (Environment of Industry). Industry could not give any satisfactory reply to show cause notice and also about achievement of ZLD status. Industry also did not submit any water balance i.e., quantity of fresh water used in the process vis-a-vis waste water generated, treated and reused in the process. Report further states that industry has two units namely; M/s Nector Life Sciences Unit 1 and Unit 2. Trade affluent generated during process carried out at Unit 1 is taken in ETP installed in Unit 2 through pipeline for treatment after given preliminary treatment i.e., utilization at Unit 1. During inspection it was found that collection tanks for storage of wastewater of unit 1 were filled up to brim level. Industry has also not complied with directions issued after hearing was held on 01.09.2023 and also could not give any satisfactory reply as to why collection tanks were filled up to grim levels. There was also no material to show that ETP installed in Unit 2 is based on ZLD technology.
11. However, Chairman, PSPCB, after hearing the representatives of unit on 17.11.2023, took following decisions:
"a) The renewal of 'consent to operate' applied by the industry under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 be granted to the industry for a short period i.e. upto 31.01.2024.
b) The industry shall submit bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 25 Lakhs within 7-days as assurance to comply with the pollution control laws to the O/o Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, SAS Nagar.
c) Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, SAS Nagar shall encash the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 15 Lakhs earlier deposited by the industry immediately and thereafter send the report to the Competent Authority.10
d) A Committee headed by Sh. Paramjit Singh, SEE, Zonal Office-1, Ludhiana, Mrs. Anuradha Sharma, Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Roopnagar, Sh. Mohit Singla, AEE, Regional Office, Patiala alongwith Dr. Anoop Verma, Professor, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), Patiala, as Technical Expert shall visit the industry and submit technical report w.r.t water auditing, groundwater study In and around the industry, adequacy of ETP/ MEE, complete material balance including generation of sludge and study as to whether unit is based on ZLD Technology or not, within 20-days with concrete recommendations.
e) A separate letter shall be written to Dr. Anoop Verma, Professor, School of Energy and Environment, TIET, Patiala to carry out water auditing, groundwater study in and around the industry, adequacy of ETP/ MEE, complete material balance including generation of sludge and study as to whether unit is based on ZLD Technology or not of the industry on its request."
12. In view of the above decision, bank guarantee of Rs.15 lakhs was encashed and industry was directed to furnish a new bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakhs as an assurance to comply with environmental laws.
13. A team of officials comprising Dr. Anoop Verma, Head School of Energy and Development, Thapar Institute, Patiala (Technical Expert), Paramjeet Singh, Senior Environmental Engineer, PSPCB, Anuradha Sharma, Environmental Engineer, PSPCB and Mohit Singla, Assistant Environmental Engineer, PSPCB visited site of industry on 22.12.2023 and 29.12.2023. Inspection report submitted by said team shows its observations during inspection dated 22.12.2023 as under:
"1. There was stagnation in the plantation area of the industry at the back side of boiler section,
2. Traces of industrial effluent were also observed in the drain near retaining wall of industry provided towards the side of drain (Haripur Hinduan).
3. The API as well as sterile plant was found operational except Menthol plant.11
4. The trade effluent (Low & High TDS) of its unit no.1 is also received in this unit (unit-2) for treatment.
5 The tanks (constructed in unit-2) earlier used for collection of effluent (for Low & High TDS) from Unit-I were found having effluent. The tank for High TDS effluent was found filled almost upto brim level and the tank for Low TDS effluent was found approx. half filled.
6. The industry has only provided transfer pump at the tank earlier used for collection nigh TDS effluent and no transfer pump has been provided at Low TDS tank for sending into the treatment plants.
The TDS of these collection tanks was also checked at the spot in the industry's lab and readings are mentioned below.
Low TDS stream from tank= 8005 ppm High TDS stream from tank =13127 ppm
7. The representative of industry informed that they have now stopped taking effluent of Unit-I in these tanks and the High & Low TDS effluent from the unit-1 have now been diverted directly into the MEE feed tank and ETP respectively.
8. The industry (unit 2) has separated Low TDS and High TDS streams in respective sections and provided separate holding tanks for LTDS and HTDS streams, each having capacity of 300 During visit, it was observed that lines coming from different sections are coming to these collection tanks, but all the lines are not having water meter/ EMF provided on it.
9. The ETP installed by the industry was found operational and is being used to treat Low TDS effluent generated from both the units, which is further taken to Ultra Filtration system and Reverse Osmosis system (RO).
10. The RO permeate is being sent for utility purpose i.e. cooling tower makeup water and also onto land for plantation purpose.
11. The RO Reject is being further, sent Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) for further treatment.
12. The industry has provided 2 MEEs of capacity 300 KL and 90 KL. However, only MEE of capacity 300 KL is being operated.12
13. The High TDS effluent from both the units and RO reject is being taken into Multi effect Evaporator (MEE). The condensate of MEE is being taken back into equalization tank of ETP for treatment and the MEE concentrate is being fed to Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD), the solid so produced are being disposed off through Common Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (CHWTF) at Nimbua, SAS Nagar.
14. Effluent samples from the following points were collected and sent to Punjab Pollution Control Board's Water Laboratory, Head Office, Patiala for analysis and the results of the same are still awaited:-
I. From stagnation in the plantation area. II. From upstream and downstream of drain at backside of industry (2 samples) III. From ETP inlet.
IV. From aeration tank-2 of ETP V. From RO inlet.
VI. From final RO Reject.
VII. From final RO permeate VIII. From MEE feed tank IX. From line carrying MEE condensate to ETP equalization tank."
14. Observations made during inspection on 29.12.2023 are contained in inspection Report as under:
"1. The stagnation earlier observed by the team in the plantation area of the industry at the back side of boiler section was found filled/covered with boiler ash.
2. Fresh traces of probable industrial effluent were observed in the drain near the retaining wall of industry. The comparative photographs of both visits are as under:-
Photograph omitted
3. The quantity of effluent stored in the tanks earlier used for collection of effluent from Unit-1 and status of providing transfer pumps was also found same.
4. The ETP installed by the industry was found operational and is being used to treat Low TO effluent generated from both the units, which is further taken to UF system and RO system, 13
5. The Multi effect Evaporator (MEE) of capacity 300 KL was found in operation only. The High TDS effluent from both the plants and complete RO reject is being taken into this Multi effect Evaporator (MEE).
6. No separate water meter is provided on the line carrying RO permeate to utilize the same onto land for plantation.
7. The status of installation of water meters at different locations was found same as observes during last visit.
8. The water meter readings noted at various water meters installed by the industry during both the visit is as under:-
Sr. Source of reading Reading on Reading on
No 22.12.2023 29.12.2023
1 Inlet of ETP 701622 m² 705343 m³
2 ETP outlet (RO1 149783.2 m³ 152530.7 m³
feed)
3 RO parameter to 346505.1 m³ 348711.9 m³
utility area
4 RO reject (final) 35410 m³ 36160 m³
5 MEE feed (High 128521.7 m³ 129904.17
TDS-300 KL m³
capacity)
6 MEE condensate 16363.1 m³ 16510.3 m³
7 MEE concentrate 8164.81 m³ 8223.4 m³
8 Tubewell-1 466827.0 m³ 467440.1
(canteen area)
9 Tubewell - 2 602527.0 m³ 603461
15. Combined observations are mentioned by the said inspection team in its inspection report dated as under:
"In view of the above said observations made by the team during the visit to the industry on 22.12.2023 & 29.12.2023, observations of the team are as under:-
1. The water auditing could not be done due to absence of proper metering of streams. The following details/ documents were sought from the industry:-
i. Water balance (of each stream)
ii. Water consumption record of both tubewells for the past 6
months.
iii. Component wise dimensional drawing of the ETP plant.
iv. Water used for cooling water make up.
14
v. Details of Ground water study conducted by the industry
vi. Technical data w.r.t depth and ground water hydrological
data of 2 piezometers installed in the premises.
vii. Material balance including generation of sludge:-
viii. Product wise reaction chemistry along with material balance shall be provided by industry for evaluation and final report by the expert member (Thapar Institute).
2. The adequacy of ETP and MEE will be commented after provision of above detail by the industry.
3. The industry has not provided proper transfer pumps for sending the Low TDS effluent lying in the earlier collection tanks to its ETP plant, so it has not transfer the low TDS effluent into its treatment plant. Moreover, the level of the effluent in the High TDS tank is found almost same which shows that the same has not been taken to MEE for treatment.
4. The industry has not provided separate water meter on the line carrying treated effluent onto land for plantation
5. The industry has not yet provided data/ documents as sought by the team during the last visit on 22.12.2023.
6. The stagnation of effluent in the plantation area, the traces of effluent observed in the drain near the boundary wall of the industry and the permanent pipeline for usage of treated wastewater onto land for plantation, shows that the industry has not achieved ZLD practice In view of above, the industry may be requested to submit the above said documents/data, so as to enable the Thapar Institute of Technology to carry out study including material balance, water audit and environment audit, which further requires the period of 45-60 days."
16. In view of above inspection Report, letter dated 04.01.2024 was issued to industry containing directions under Section 33A of Water Act, 1974. Directions issued by PSPCB are as under:
"1. The industry shall reduce the production capacity of the unit by 25%, till the final technical report w.r.t water auditing, groundwater study in and around the industry, adequacy of ETP/MEE, complete material balance including generation of 15 sludge, is received from Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Thapar, Patiala.
2. The industry shall not discharge any quantity of treated/ untreated trade effluent outside its 2) premises/plantation area (earlier used by it), under any circumstance.
3. The industry shall obtain revised consent to operate under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, for reduce production capacity i.e. 75% of the existing production capacity."
17. Copy of the letter dated 04.01.2024 is on record at page 46 of paper book and it shows that industry was found violating provisions of Water Act, 1974 and not achieving ZLD conditions discharging effluent onto land without permission of PSPCB.
18. Tribunal's Order dated 05.01.2024: Above Status Report dated 04.01.2024 was considered by Tribunal on 05.01.2024. It was stated by learned counsel for appearing for PSPCB before Tribunal that Sample Analysis Report was awaited and fresh Report after obtaining Sample Analysis Report shall be filed. Tribunal granted time to file such Report with a further direction to PSPCB to carry out water audit and submit Water Audit Report as also water flow chart of unit in question and also point out Sample Analysis Report of discharge of water from unit by whatever source. Report shall also disclose manner of disposal of sludge by industry and quality of groundwater around industry. Report dated 04.03.2024 filed by PSPCB:
19. Pursuant to order dated 05.01.2024, PSPCB filed another Report dated 04.03.2024. It says that Thapar Institute of Indian Technology, Patiala has submitted Environment Audit Report of the industry and it is 16 being examined by the officers of PSPCB who shall submit their recommendation/report for which four months' time was prayed.
20. Tribunal's Order dated 05.03.2024: Tribunal considered the said reply as also Environment Audit Report on 05.03.2024 and found that the said report was submitted by Thapar Institute of Indian Technology, Patiala based on technical information provided by the industry and pollution load assessed by Institute's team with all the material balance calculations during the industry visit and cannot be deemed to be a certificate for any legal implications. In view thereof, the report was fully unreliable with no legal implications. When pointed out, Learned Counsel appearing for PSPCB stated that it will take fresh samples and get the same analysed and thereafter, file a fresh report in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 6 of order dated 05.01.2024. Time was granted for filing a fresh Action Taken Report in terms of the above statement of Learned Counsel for PSPCB.
Action Taken Report dated 08.05.2024 filed by PSPCB:
21. Pursuant to order dated 05.03.2024, a further Action Taken Report dated 08.05.2024 has been filed by PSPCB. On the question of allowing the industry to operate without CTO, it is said that an explanation was called by Member Secretary, PSPCB from Sh. G.D. Garg, Environmental Engineer, PSPCB vide letter dated 23.04.2024. In reference thereto, reply dated 30.04.2024 by the said officer explaining the situation, is as under:
a) The industry was granted consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 01.12.2023 for 2 months upto 31.01.2024.
b) Before the expiry of the consents, the industry applied for renewal of consents on 18.01.2024 through online system but the 17 applications were returned on 24.01.2024 being incomplete.
c) Industry failed to resubmit the applications for renewal of consents to operate.
d) Show cause notice vide letter no. 576 dated 08.02.2024 was issued to the industry.
e) Industry applied for renewal of consents to operate through online system on 14.02.2024. However, due to the installation of new VM server, the online system was not operational from 14.02.2024 to 21.02.2024. Letter no. 4016-31 dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Computer Section of the Board at Patiala is enclosed with the reply.
f) Due to above reason, online applications could not be processed during the time period of 14.02.2024 to 21.02.2024.
g) The applications submitted by the industry were processed by the Regional Office through online system on 28.02.2024 (within 5 working days).
h) On the basis of the visits carried out on 06.01.2024 and 02.02.2024, a show cause notice for refusal for grant of consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), 1981 was issued by Zonal Office, Patiala vide letter no. 12726 dated 15.03.2024 with an opportunity of hearing to the industry before the Chairman of the Board on 22.03.2024."
22. PSPCB also constituted a special team of the officers vide letter dated 18.03.2024 comprising following:
"1. Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office-1, Patiala
2. Sh. G.D. Garg, Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, SAS Nagar
3. Sh. Arshdeep Singh, Asstt. Environmental Engineer, Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, SAS Nagar
4. Sh. Avtar Singh, Scientific Officer (Water), Punjab Pollution Control Board, Head Office Lab, Patiala."
23. The said team visited the site on 20.03.2024, carried out ground water sampling (in and around the industry), sampling from upstream and downstream of adjoining Haibatpur drain, complete monitoring of ETP inlet, RO permeate, MEE feed, MEE condensate, MEE concentrate. After 18 analysis of the samples, the said team submitted a comprehensive study report vide letter dated 10.04.2024. The said Report is at page 257 and its observations, conclusions and recommendations are reproduced as under:
"1.0 Background The industry is an API and bulk drug manufacturing unit located at Vill. Saidpura, Tehsil Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar. The industry was granted 'consent to operate' under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide no. CTOW/Renewal/SAS/2023/23777031 dated 01/12/2023 and under Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 vide no. CTOA/Renewal/SAS/2023/23772629 dated 01/12/2023, both having validity upto 31/1/2024 for following products:
Sr. No. Name of products Capacity as per consent to operate
1. Menthol Crystals 16.6T/day
2. Menthol flakes 6. 6T/ day
3. Menthol liquid/powder 16. 6T/day
4. Cefix Trihydrate 1.786T/day
5. Cefuroxime (Amorphous) 1.65T/day
6. Cefpodoxime Axetil (Coated) 0.0071/day
7. Cefpodoximne Proxetil 0.01T/day
8. Cefditoren Pivoxil 0.0035T/day
9. Cefdinir 0.05T/day
10. Ceftriaxone Sodium 0.84T/day
11. Cefotaxime Sodium 0.4T/day
12. Cefepime Injection 0.0577T/day
13. Cefuroxime sodium. 0.02723 T/day
14. Cephalothin Sodium 0.05T/day
15. Cefazolin Sodium 0.003211/day
16. Cefprozil 0.0005T/day
17. Cefoxitin Sodiurn 0.001T/day
18. Ceftiofur 0.00003T/day
19. Ceftaroline 0.00002T/day
20. Metformin HCL 0.071/day
21. Cefcapine Pivoxil 0.000027/day
22. Sodium Carbonate 0.002T/day
23. L-Arginine 0.002T/day
24. Ceftazime Pentahydrate 0.015T/day
25. Ceftibutene Hydrate 0.021/day
26. Cefotium HCL 0.015T/day The industry has also obtained authorization under the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 vide no. HWM/renew/SAS/2023/23819649 19 Dated 16/11/2023 valid upto 31/3/2024 for different categories, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.
2.0 Water Pollution The industry has installed ETP consisting of oil and grease traps, equalization tank-1, equalization tank-2, pre-primary clarifier, pre-
aeration tank, aeration tank-1, clarifier-1, aeration tank-2, clarifier-2, post equalization tank-1, post equalization tank-2, MGF feed Lank, treated water tank and R.O system for treatment of LTDS effluent generated from its process and two no. MEEs of capacity 350 KLD and 90 KLD for treatment HTDS effluent. The industry is generating domestic effluent from its premises and same is being treated in ETP installed by industry. The industry has developed plantation area within its premises in an area of about 4 acres to utilize the partial quantity of R.O permeate onto land for plantation as per their requirement. The industry has installed two no. tubewells as source of water supply same are equipped with water meters to adjudge the quantity of groundwater abstraction used for industrial as well as domestic purposes. The industry has already obtained permission from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) vide dated 1/11/2011 for the abstraction of groundwater @ 1015 KLD. Copy of the said permission is annexed as Annexure-A. However, the industry has not yet obtained permission from Punjab Water Regulation & Development Authority (PWRDA) for the abstraction of groundwater. In this regard, the representative of the industry informed that they have already applied to PWIRDA for abstraction of ground water and yet to obtain final permission from the said authority.
3.0 Air Pollution The industry has installed 02 no. boilers of capacity 40 TPH each, equipped with separate ESPs as APCDs and stack of adequate height. During visit, only one of the boiler of capacity 40 TPH was in operation and the second boiler of capacity 40 TPH was under maintenance. The industry is using rice husk and chopped wood as fuel in the boiler. The representative of the industry informed that on an average 50-60 Ton of ash is produced per day. The industry has installed one no. ash storage silo of capacity 50 Ton with 02 no. boiler of capacity 40 TPH each. The industry has also installed another boiler of capacity 25 TPH, which was found not in operation. The industry has installed bag filter house as APCD with the said boiler. However, the industry has not provided adequate stack height sampling platform with the said stack. The industry has also installed APCDs with stack of adequate heights with formulation/ reaction tanks to scrub and discharge of process emissions at adequate height. The industry has 20 installed three no. DG sets of capacity 1250 KVA (2 no) and 100 KVA (1 no.) equipped with canopies and stack of adequate heights. 4.0 Hazardous Waste The industry is generating hazardous waste of category 28.1, 28.3, 28.4, 33.1, 35.3, 37.2, 36.1, 5.1 and 36.2 from its process. The industry has already constructed hazardous waste storage room with partition for the storage of hazardous waste of different categories within its premises. The industry has already executed an agreement with M/s Nimbua Greenfield Pvt. Ltd. for lifting of hazardous waste from the industrial premises. The industry has also installed in house incinerator to incinerate hazardous waste of different categories. 5.0 Status of OA no. 173/2023 titled as Shallabjit Singh v/s State of Punjab OA No. 173/2023, titled as Shallabjit Singh v/s State of Punjab is pending in the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal wherein, it was alleged that there is a pharmaceutical unit namely M/s Nectar Life Sciences Limited at Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) which is discharging highly polluted chemical effluents in the agricultural field causing damage to the crops and land. The case was heard on 5/1/2024 and the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal passed the orders, the relevant part is reproduced as under:
"6. Learned Counsel appearing for the PPCB has submitted that sample analysis report of the samples taken from the unit is awaited. Therefore, a fresh report after obtaining sample analysis report will be filed. The PPCB is also directed to carry out water audit and submit the water audit report as also the water flow chart of the unit in question and also point out the sample analysis report of discharge of water from the unit by whatever source. The report will also disclose the manner of disposal of sludge by the unit in question and quality of groundwater around the industry. Let the report be filed within a period of six weeks by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
No report in terms of the above statement has been filed but a short reply dated 04.03.2024 has been filed stating that the PPCB had engaged School of Energy and Environment, Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology (TIET), Patiala to carry out the ground water study in and around the industry and that the report from the institute has been received by the PPCB and 21 which is being examined by the team of officers constituted by the Board for the purpose and that the team will submit conclusive recommendations in due course of time. Hence, four weeks' time has been prayed for.
7. On the examination of the report of School of Energy and Environment, Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, we find that at the end of the report, following note has been appended:
"Note: This report is based on the technical information provided by the industry and pollution load assessed by TIET team with all the material balance calculations during the industry visit and cannot be deemed to be a certificate for any legal implications."
8. In view of the above note, we had put a question to the Counsel for PPCB, can such a report be relied upon by Tribunal which had no legal Implications? Learned Counsel for the PPCB submitted that this report can be of some assistance but now, the PPCB will take fresh samples and get them analysed and file a fresh report in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 6 of the order dated 05.01.2024 within a period of four weeks.
9. Hence, the fresh action token report in terms of the above be filed within four weeks by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
10. List on 15.05.2024."
6.0 Constitution of Team In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal dated 5/3/2024, the Competent Authority of the Board has constituted the Team of following officers of the Board vide letter no. 12742-45 dated 18/3/2024:
1. Sh. Rajeev Gupta, Environmental Engineer 1/1, Zonal office-1, Patiala.
2. Sh. G.D. Garg, Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, SAS Nagar 22
3. Sh. Arshdeep Singh, Asstt.
Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, SAS Nagar
4. Sh. Avtar Singh, Scientific Officer (Water), Head Office Lab, Patiala The scope of the team was prescribed by the Competent Authority i.e. to visit the site of the industry, carryout water auditing, groundwater study (in and the around the industry), adequacy of ETP-MEE, complete water balance including generation of sludge and study as to whether the unit is based on ZLD technology or not. 7.0 Visit of the Team In compliance to orders of the Competent Authority, the industry namely M/s Nectar Lifesciences (Unit-II), Village Saidpura, Derabassi was visited by the team on 20.03.2024 to carry out the study/ verify the compliance made by the industry. During visit, the Team observed as under:
1. The industry was in operation and engaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs. The Team sought the production record from the industry for the last six months w.e.f September, 2023. Accordingly, the representative of the industry submitted product wise production record of the unit for last six months and the same is attached herewith as Annexure-B. The Team examined the records submitted by the industry and found that the average production varies from 1.53 MTD to 2.350 MTD (varies from 31.07% to 47.60%).
However, the production for the month of February, 2024 increase to the tune of 3.490 MTD (70.70%). The month wise average production made by the industry is as under:
Month Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024
Total EC Average Average Average Average Average Average
API approved MT/day MT/day MT/day MT/day MT/day MT/day
Product in
ion MT/day
4.93697 1.532 2.233 2.290 2.220 2.350 3,490
%age 31.07 45.23 46.38 44.97 47.60 70.70
2. The industry has installed 02 no. tubewells in its premises equipped with EMF meters. The industry is maintaining records of the readings of both these flow meters. The industry has submitted the records for the last six months i.e. September 2023- February, 2024 to the Team and same has been 23 examined and month wise details are as under:
Tubewell no. Feb., Jan., Dec., Nov., Oct., Sep., 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 1 35 22 21 20 11 26 2 949 973 958 953 975 942 Total 984 995 979 973 986 968 From the data submitted by the industry, it is interpreted that the industry has abstracted maximum quantity of groundwater @ 995 KLD in the month of Jan, 2024 corresponding to a production of 47.6%. The Team observed that the groundwater abstraction for the month of Feb., 2024 made by the industry is to the tune of 984 KLD corresponding to a production capacity of 70.70%. Thus, the Team members felt that with increase in production, there is no substantial increase in groundwater abstraction made by the industry.
In order to crass verify, the records maintained by the industry, the team deputed one dedicated official of PPCB to monitor groundwater abstraction made by the industry in 24 hours. The water meter readings provided with two no, tubewells were taken by the said official at regular intervals for 24 hours and the same are as under:
Tubewell Reading on Reading on Abstraction
no. 21.03.2024 20.03.2024
1 469798.59 469765.05 33 KLD
2 675315 674735 580 KLD
The representative of the industry informed to the team that the gap between the readings taken by the team on 20/3/2024 to 21/3/2024 and records maintained by the industry for groundwater abstraction is due to the facts that the industry is using fresh water for making batch randomly. On the date of visit of the team, the industry had prepared the batch prior to the time of visit. However, the average of groundwater for whole of the month will remains same. Also, it is mentioned here that a groundwater abstraction made by the industry is well within the permission obtained from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) i.e. 1015 KLD.
3. The industry has installed 02 no. Multi Effect Evaporators (MEEs) of capacity 350 KLD and 90 KLD in its premises for treatment of High TDS (HTDS) effluent being generated from 24 Unit I & II. Presently, the industry is operating only one MEE of capacity 350 KLD and second MEE of capacity 90 KLD was found not in operation. The industry has installed flow meters at various lines of MEE and maintaining record of the readings of these flow meters. The industry has submitted the records to the Team for the period Sep, 2023 to Feb, 2024 & same has been examined and month wise details are is as under:
Particulars Feb., Jan., Dec., Nov., Oct., Sep., 2024 2024 2023 2023 2023 2023 MEE feed 260.48 253.03 224.96 274 275.16 277.36 MEE 244.55 245.45 218.19 266.26 266.93 270.4 condensate MEE 7.79 7.58 6.77 7.73 8.25 6.93 concentrate From the data submitted by the industry, it is interpreted that the quantity of HDTS effluent taken in MEE of capacity 350 KLD for the month of Sep., 2023 is 277.36 KLD corresponding to a production capacity 1.532 TPD (31.07%), which is lowest during the period of Sep., 2023 to Feb., 2024. Similarly, the quantity of HTDS taken to MEE for the months of Feb., 2024 is 260.48 KLD corresponding to a production capacity 3.49 TPD (70.79%), which is the highest during the period of Sep., 2023 to Feb., 2024. Thus, the Team members felt that with increase in production, there is no substantial increase in generation of HTDS effluent.
In order to cross verify, the records maintained by the industry, the team deputed one dedicated official of PPCB to monitor MEE feed in 24 hours. The water meter readings provided were taken by the said official at regular intervals for 24 hours and the same are as under:
Particulars Reading on Reading on Quantity in 21.03.2024 20.03.2024 KLD MEE feed 160063.15 159770.86 292.29 MEE 185427 185120 307 condensate MEE 8705.236 8699.14 6.09 concentrate
4. The quantity of MEE feed monitored by the Team by taking readings for 24 hours and records maintained by the industry, varies by 10%. In this regard, the 25 representative of the industry informed that this variation is for one day. However, overall quantity of MEE feed will be inconsonance with the records maintained by the industry for the month of March, 2024.
5. The industry has installed an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) of capacity 1500 KLD consisting of physio-chemical treatment followed by biological treatment for treatment of LTDS effluent being generated from unit-1 & 2 (including MEE condensate and domestic effluent). The said ETP was found operational during visit of the team. The industry has installed flow meters at different lines of ETP. The industry is maintaining records of the readings of these flow meters and submitted the same to the visiting team during visit. The team examined the data submitted by the industry and month wise details for the period Sep., 2023 to Feb., 2024 is as under:
Average Reading on Reading on Feb., Jan., Dec., Nov., Oct., Sep., (KLD) 21.03.2024 20.03.2024 2024 2024 2023 2023 2023 2023 ETP Inlet 521727.34 520554 1056 1070 1044 1054 1057 1057 RO 418847.75 418024.47 734 743 747 745 (main 760 728 permeate meter (utilities) under repair from 03.11.202-
30.11.2023 and new meter installed during this time period RO 1034 1034 34 New 28 30 (New 30 34 35 permeate meter meter (gardening) installed installed оп on 4/12/23) 4/12/23) RO Reject 45844.8 45720.5 88 89 90 89 91 87 From the data submitted by the industry, it is interpreted that the quantity of LDTS effluent taken in ETP for the period of Sep., 2023 to Feb., 2024 varies 1044 to 1070 KLD for corresponding to a production capacity varies form 3.49 TPD (70.79%) to 1.532 TPD (31.07%), which is almost uniform. Thus, the team members felt that with increase in production, there is no substantial increase in generation of LTDS effluent. In order to cross verify, the records maintained by the industry, the team deputed one dedicated official of PPCB to monitor 26 quantity of LTDS effluent in 24 hours. The water meter readings provided were taken by the said official at regular intervals for 74 hours and found that the quantity of LTDS effluent taken to ETP is to the tune of 1173 KLD. In this regard, the representative of the industry informed that the average quantity of LTDS effluent taken to ETP for the month of March, 2024 will remain inconsonance with the data supplied by the industry for the period of Sep., 2023 to Feb., 2024.
6. From the data mentioned in the table, it has been found that the industry is partially using RO permeate in cooling tower as makeup water and partly onto land for plantation (approx. 30 KLD) developed within its premises. The industry has provided permanent pipeline in the plantation area to utilize R.O permeate onto land for plantation. However, during visit of the team, the industry was found not using R.O permeate onto land for plantation. In this regard, the representative of the industry informed to the visiting team that R.O permeate is not used onto land for plantation regularly. But, during no demand period in the cooling tower, the R.O permeate is discharge onto land for plantation to save fresh water for the same.
7. The visiting team observed that the industry is generating domestic effluent from its premises and same is being taken to ETP for its treatment. No separate records are being maintained by the industry w.r.t the quantity of said effluent. However, the representative of the industry informed to the team that about 1800 workers in 3 shifts are working in the industrial premises. Taking per capita consumption of water @ 45 liters/person, approximately 65 KLD of domestic effluent is being generated from industrial units.
The team felt that the industry is required to install STP of adequate capacity to treat domestic effluent being generated from its premises, which is presently taken to ETP. By installing STP of adequate capacity, there will be substantial decrease in pollution load on the ETP as well as energy saving. The treated domestic effluent can be utilized by the industry onto land for plantation already developed within its premises. Thus, the spirit of ZLD will be achieved by the industry by stopping use of R.O permeate onto land for plantation as there will be decrease in pollution load to the tune of 65 KLD as well as subsequent decrease in R.O permeate by installing STP. In this regard, the industry has submitted its proposal for installation 27 of STP of adequate capacity for the treatment of domestic effluent.
8. Team has collected samples from ETP Inlet, RO Permeate, MEE Feed, MEE Condensate, MEE Concentrate and same were sent to Head Office Lab, Patiala for analysis of various parameters. The analysis results have been received and are annexed as Annexure-C. However, the results are also tabulated as under:
Sr.No. Parameters Inlet RO MEE MEE MEE Unit 1 Unit Prescribed of ETP Permeate Feed Condensate Concentrate HTDS 1 Standards LTDS
1. PH 6.3 6.7 1.5 4.3 4.9 7.9 6.0 6.0-8.5
2. Total 210 13 1720 BDL 7060 272 74 100 Suspended Solids mg/l
3. Total 9877 298 23113 398 424644 424406 10590 -
Dissolved Solids mg/l
4. Chemical 6780 116 - - - 20000 1700 -
Oxygen Demand mg/l
5. Bio-chemical 2040 26 - - - 5000 510 100 Oxygen Demand mg/1
6. Oil & Grease 14.9 BDL - - - 170 45 10 mg/l
7. Phosphate 8.6 BDL - - - 58.0 10.2 5.0 mg/l
8. Ammonical 10.2 BDL - - - 98.0 17.3 -
Nitrogen mg/l
9. Phenolic BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL 1.0 Compound ing/l
10. Total BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL -
Chrome mg/1
11. Hexa BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL 0.10 Chrome mg/l
12. Zinc mg/l 0.21 BDL - - - 0.32 0.18 -
13. Copper BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL -
mg/1
14. Arsenic BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL 0.20 mg/1
15. Mercury BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL 0.01 mg/l
16. Lead mg/1 BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL 0.10
17. Cyanide BDL BDL - - - BDL BDL -
mg/l
18. Sulphide 6.0 BDL - - - BDL BDL 2.0 mg/l
19. Bio-assay - 100% - - - - - 90 % survival survival of of fish in fish in 100% 100% 28 effluent effluent after 96 after 96 hours.
From the above-mentioned results, it is clear that the industry is achieving prescribed effluent standards prescribed by the board for discharges onto land for plantation. Also, results shows that there is substantial decrease in concentration of TDS in MEE condensate.
9. The team has carried out groundwater sampling from inside and outside industrial premises. Samples were sent to Head Office Lab, Patiala for further analysis of various parameters. The analysis results have been received and are annexure as Annexure-D. However, the results are also tabulated on next page:
10. There is a natural drain namely Haibatpur drain passing adjoining to the boundary wall of the unit. No discharge of industrial was found in the said drain during visit of the team Samples from said drain on upstream as well as downstream of the industrial unit were collected and sent to Head Office Lab for analysis of various parameters. The analysis results have been received and are annexed as Annexure-E. However, the results are also tabulated as under:
Sr. Parameters U/s of Industry D/s of the Industry no. from Haibatpur from Haibatpur Drain Drain
1. PH 7.5 8.4 2. Total Suspended Solids mg/l 395 442
3. Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 976 1138 4. Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 396 415 5. Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 81 92
6. Oil & Grease mg/l BDL 3.5
7. Phosphate mg/l 0.3 0.9
8. Ammonical Nitrogen mg/l 5.3 9.3
9. Phenolic Compound mg/l BDL BDL
10. Total Chrome mg/l BDL BDL
11. Hexa Chrome mg/l BDL BDL
12. Zinc mg/l 0.37 0.43
13. Copper mg/l 0.18 0.28
14. Arsenic mg/l BDL BDL
15. Mercury mg/l BDL BDL
16. Lead mg/l BDL BDL
17. Cyanide mg/l BDL BDL
18. Sulphide mg/l BDL BDL From the above mentioned results, the team felt that there is 29 no substantial change in the concentration of various parameters in the samples collected from upstream side as well as downstream side of the industry. Thus, these results rule out the possibility of discharge of treated/untreated effluent by the industrial unit into the said drain.
11. The team has contacted institutes of repute and laboratories i.e. Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala, PBTI, Mohali, NIPER, Mohali, Punjab University, Chandigarh to get the samples tested w.r.t parameters cefixime. However, none of these institutes were having testing facility for the said parameter. Thereafter, M/s Interstellar Testing Center Pvt. Ltd., Panchkulawas contacted and they agreed for testing the samples for cefixime parameter. Accordingly, samples were sent and analysis results have been received and are annexed as Annexure-F. However, the results are also tabulated as under:
Sr.No. Location Parameter Measuring Instrument Method Result Unit of sampling
1. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Sample from Piezometer -
I
2. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Sample from Piezometer-
II
3. Cafixime Ground µg/1 LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Sample from School of vill. Haripur Hindua
4. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water agricultural field of Haripur village vill.
Haripur Hindua
5. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water works of village Haibatpur
6. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Guggamadi of village Haibatpur
7. Cafixime RO µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) permeate
8. Cafixime Ground µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) 30 water piezometer of Unit 1
9. Cafixime Surface µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Haibatpur drain upstream
10. Cafixime Surface µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) water Haibatpur drain downstream
11. Cafixime From PWD µg/l LCMSMS Inhouse BLQ(LOQ:02) rest house Mubarikpur (reference sample).
Note: NA- Not Applicable, LOQ- Limit of Quantification, BLQ- Below limit of Quantification.
From the above mentioned results, it has been found that the concentration of Cafixmine, were found below limit of quantification in all the samples.
12. The industry is generating hazardous waste of category 35.3 i.e. ETP sludge and MEE salt of schedule-1 of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The industry is lifting this sludge to M/s Nimbua Greenfield Pvt. Ltd. the industry has provided common hazardous waste storage room, wherein partitions have been made for storage of different categories of hazardous waste. The industry has installed sludge dewatering system for drying of ETP sludge. The industry is maintaining the record w.r.t generation of sludge, lifting and lying stored. Industry is also maintaining the records of manifests vide which the sludge had been got lifted to Nimbua. The team sought the records from the industry in above regard for the last six months. Accordingly, the industry has supplied the records and same has been examined and month wise details of the sludge are as under:
Monthly Average Sep., 23 Oct., 23 Nov, 23 Dec, 23 Jan, 24 Feb, 24 March, 24 Hazardous waste 171.8 200.9 200.1 176.6 199,9 183.4 186.5 of category 35.3 (ΕΤΡ sludge & MEE salt in MT) generation 31 Hazardous waste - - - - 42.610 180.555 619.920 of category 35.3 (ETP sludge & MEE salt in MT) generation It is mentioned here that earlier the industry has stored HTDS and LTDS effluent generated from Unit-1 separately in two no. tanks. A perusal of records reveals that the said tank were filled upto brim level. However, the visiting team seem that out of these two tanks, one tank meant for LTDS effluent was found almost empty and second tank meant for HDTS effluent was still found filled upto depth 8 ft., with highly concentrated effluent i.e. in semi-solid stage. In this regard, the representative of the industry available during visit informed that the LTDS effluent has been treated in the ETP and the sludge has been got lifted to Nimbua. Also, he informed that the HTDS effluent has been taken to MEE and only sludge in semi solid state is left in the said tank. The said sludge will be sent to Nimbua after reducing its moisture content.
13. The team has examined the records w.r.t generation of sludge and its lifting to Nimbua. On examination, it has been found that the generation of sludge for the period of Sep:, 2023 to March, 2024 varies from 171.8 MT to 200.9 MT. The industry has got sludge lifted to Nimbua @ 619.920 MT, which is about three times its month wise generation and about 676 MT sludge is lying stored in the industrial premises. The team felt that quantity of sludge lifted by the industry during the months 2024 is due to treatment of LTDS and HTDS legacy 'effluent of Unit-1 which was earlier lying stored in two no. tanks, Moreover, still a large quantity of i.e. about 676 MT sludge is still lying stored in the industry, which is yet to be lifted to Nimbua. Besides this, a large quantity of sludge in semi solid state is lying stored in HDTS effluent storage tank which is required to be sent to Nimbua by the industry by reducing its moisture content upto desired level. A copy of records submitted by the industry w.r.t sludge generation and its disposal is annexed herewith as Annexure-G.
14. It is worth to mention here that there is another unit of the industry namely M/s Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., Unit-1, Vill. Sainpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi and engaged in the business of manufacturing of API and bulk drugs. The LTDS effluent and HTDS effluent generated from the process of this unit was being stored in two no, tanks earlier provided in Unit-II through permanent pipeline from Unit-1 to Unit-II. However, now the LTDS and HTDS effluent generated from Unit-I is being taken directly through pipeline in the respective LTDS and HTDS effluent collection tanks of Unit-II. The Unit-II has now stopped taking the said effluents of Unit-I in the collection tanks earlier 32 provided in Unit-II.
The quantities of LTDS, HTDS effluent and domestic effluent generated from Unit-I has been incorporated in the quantities mentioned above.
8.0 Conclusions
1) The team has collected the groundwater samples from inside as well as outside the industrial premises, which were got analyzed for various parameters from Board's Lab. Also, the samples were got analyzed for parameter cefaxime from M/s interstellar Testing Center Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula. The results have been examined by the team and found that there is no adverse effect on the quality of groundwater with the operations of the unit. ETP&MEE are achieving the desired standards.
2) The analysis results of the samples collected on upstream and downstream of the industry from Habitpur drain reveals that there is no substantial change in the concentration of various parameters, which rule out the possibility of discharge of treated/untreated effluent by the industrial unit into the said drain.
3) The industry has installed ETP followed by R.O and MEE for treatment of LTDS and HDTS effluent. The industry is discharging R.O permeate onto land for plantation developed by it within its premises. The industry is required to quantify the quantities of domestic effluent being generated from Unit-I and Unit-II and thereafter required to install STP of adequate capacity on priority basis so as to reduce the pollution load of said effluent on ETP and to save the energy. The industry can utilize the treated domestic effluent onto land for plantation already developed by it within its premises.
4) The industry is being operated less than 50% capacity for the last six months and at capacity about 70% during the month of Feb., 2024. But, the quantity of groundwater abstraction viz-a- viz LTDS, HTDS effluent generation and treated is almost in the same pattern of said capacities. Thus, it can be interpreted that by increasing the production capacity from 50 to 70%, there is no substantial change in the quantities of groundwater abstraction, LTDS and HTDS effluent generation. The team seen that at production capacity 70% during the month of Feb., 2024, the groundwater abstraction is 984 KLD, LTDS effluent @ 1056 KLD, HTDS effluent @ 260.48 KLD, which is very similar to the quantities at production capacity varies from 31.07% to 47.60%. Therefore, the treatment facility provide by the industry is adequate to achieve ZLD at 70% of production capacity.
5) Large quantity of sludge i.e. 676 MT (approx.) in dry condition and large quantity of sludge in semi solid state is lying stored 33 in the earlier HDTS collection tank. The industry is required to lift the said sludge immediately to Nimbua in an environmentally sound manner.
9.0 Recommendations
1) The industry shall operate its ETP and MEE regularly and efficiently so as to achieve the all the desired standards laid down by the Board all the times.
2) The industry shall not discharge treated/ untreated effluent into Habitpur drain under any circumstances.
3) The industry shall stop taking domestic effluent in the ETP to install STP of adequate capacity within two months, so as to reduce the pollution load on ETP, which also help disposal of R.O permeate onto land for plantation.
4) The industry shall immediately empty HTDS effluent storage tank within one month by sending the already accumulated sludge to Nimbua in an environmentally sound manner by adopting proper manifest system. The industry shall lift the sludge of quantity 676 MT (approx.) to Nimbua within 15-days.
5) Based on the conclusion mentioned at Sr. no. 4 above, the team felt that even at production capacity of 70%, the LTDS effluent generation is 1056 KLD, which is well below the capacity of ETP i.e. 1500 KLD and HTDS effluent generation is 260.48 KLD, which is well below the capacity of MEE i.e. 350 KLD. Thus, the team is of the opinion that the industry can be operated at a production capacity of 75% of its existing capacity keeping in view the variation of above mentioned quantities due to change in mix product, cleaning in process (CIP) procedures etc."
24. PSPCB in the light of the Report dated 10.04.2024 decided to grant CTO to the industry to operate at 75% of its installed capacity and issued CTO letters dated 02.05.2024 under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 which was valid upto 30.09.2024 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. Copies of the CTOs are on record as annexure E and F at pages 304 (under Water Act, 1974) and 307 (under Air Act, 1981).
25. No Reply by Proponent: We may mention at this stage that on behalf of respondents 3 i.e., project proponent/concerned industry, appearance was put in by filing vakalatnama of Sh. Atul V. Sood and Mr. 34 Raktim Gogoi, Advocates. However, it has not chosen to file any response/reply on the merits of the matter.
26. Tribunal's Order dated 15.05.2024: We heard the matter on merits on 15.05.2024 and reserved for orders. However, accepting the request of the Counsels for the respondents, we allowed two days' time to file written submissions, if any, to the concerned parties. Written Submission/Brief Note dated 16.05.2024 filed by PSPCB:
27. Pursuant to the above indulgence granted on 15.05.2024, written submission or a brief note dated 16.05.2024 has been filed by PSPCB and instead summarising the said statement, we find it appropriate to reproduce the relevant contents of the written submissions filed on behalf of PSPCB as under:
"2. That the industry namely M/s Nectar Lifesciences Limited, Unit-II was granted consent to operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 01.12.2023 for 2 months upto 31.01.2024. Before the expiry of the consents, the industry applied for renewal of consents on 18.01.2024 through online system but the applications were returned on 24.01.2024 being incomplete. However, the Industry failed to resubmit the applications for renewal of consents to operate, before expiry of the validity of 'consent to operate', i.e. on 31.01.2024.
3. Accordingly, vide letter no. 576 dated 08.02.2024, the industry was issued notice for violation of various provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, due to the fact that the industry had failed to apply for renewal of the consents and was operating its unit without having valid 'consent to operate' under the said Acts. The said notice was issued to the industry, with the directions to apply for renewal of 'consent to operate' under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, within 07 days, failing which further action shall be initiated against the industrial unit. A copy of the said notice bearing no. 576 dated 08.02.2024 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. 35
4. Thereupon, the industry had applied for renewal of consents through online system on 14.02.2024. As, the industry was found not complying with the provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, during earlier visit carried out on 06.01.2024 & 02.02.2024,the industry was issued show cause notice vide letter no.12726 dated 15.03.2024 for refusal of grant of 'consent to operate' under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,alongwith an opportunity of personal hearing before the Chairman of the Board. A copy of the said notice no.12726 dated 15.03.2024, wherein, non-compliances have been mentioned is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B.
5. Further it is submitted that in the hearing held on 01.04.2024, the Competent Authority of the Board decided as under:
1) Directions u/s 31-A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 shall be issued that the industry shall not operate boiler of capacity 25 TPH without providing stack of adequate height alongwith sample collection facility under any circumstances and without obtaining prior permission from the Board.
2) The compliance report submitted by the industry be given to the Committee already constituted by the Board to examine the compliances made by the industry.
3) The Committee shall submit the report within 3-days to the Competent Authority of the Board alongwith recommendations.
4) On the receipt of the report from the Committee, renewal of consent to operate applied by the industry under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 will be decided on merits.
The proceedings of the personal hearing held on 01.04.2024 were issued and conveyed to the industry vide letter no. 191 dated 10.04.2024 and the copy of letter dated 10.04.2024 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-C. A copy of the directions issued by the Board u/s 31-A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in compliance to decision no. 01 of the hearing held on 01.04.2024 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-D. 36
6. That in compliance to decision no. 2 & 3 of the hearing held on 01.04.2024, the committee of officers constituted by the Board visited the site of the industry M/s Nectar Lifesciences (P) Ltd, Derabassi on 20.03.2024 and carried out ground water sampling (in and around the industry), sampling from upstream and downstream of adjoining Haibatpur drain, complete monitoring of ETP inlet, RO permeate, MEE feed, MEE condensate, MEE concentrateand after analysis of the samples, the Committee of Officers submitted a comprehensive study report along with relevant annexures vide letter no. 1460 dated 10.04.2024 to the Member Secretary of the Board. A copy of the said report has already been annexed as Annexure-D with the reply dated 08.05.2024 filed by the Board before the Hon'ble Tribunal through email dated 08.05.2024.
7. That the said committee of officers had checked the records of treatment of wastewater and utilization of treated wastewater (i.e. RO Permeate) for last six months. With regard to the HTDS effluent, the industry is generating the said effluent to the tune of around 260 KLD on an average, which is being treated in Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) of capacity 350 KLD. The MEE condensate is being sent to ETP for treatment alongwith LTDS effluent. As per the records maintained by the industry and analyzed by the Committee of Offices, the quantity of LTDS effluent being treated by the industry in its ETP for the period of September 2023 to February 2024 varies from 1044 KLD to 1070 KLD. On an average, the industry was found to be utilizing around 742 KLD of RO Permeate back as cooling tower makeup water. Around 30 KLD of RO Permeate is being used onto land for plantation developed in an area of around 04 acres inside the premises of the industrial unit.
8. That after the through monitoring of the industrial unit (water audit, water flow chart, sample analysis report of ground water, discharge of water, disposal of sludge, quality of ground water in and around the industry), as explained herein above, the committee of officers has given the following recommendations in its report dated 10.04.2024:
a) The industry shall operate its ETP and MEE regularly and efficiently so as to achieve the all the desired standards laid down by the Board all the times.
b) The industry shall not discharge treated/ untreated effluent into Habitpur drain under any circumstances.37
c) The industry shall stop taking domestic effluent in the ETP to install STP of adequate capacity within two months, so as to reduce the pollution load on ETP, which also help to stop the disposal of R.O permeate onto land for plantation.
d) The industry shall immediately empty HTDS effluent storage tank within one month by sending the already accumulated sludge to Nimbua in an environmentally sound manner by adopting proper manifest system. The industry shall lift the sludge of quantity 676 MT (approx.) to Nimbua within 15- days
e) Based on the conclusion mentioned at Sr. no. 4 above, the team felt that even at production capacity of 70%, the LTDS effluent generation is 1056 KLD, which is well below the capacity of ETP i.e. 1500 KLD and HTDS effluent generation is 260.48 KLD, which is well below the capacity of MEE i.e. 350 KLD.
Thus, the team is of the opinion that the industry can be operated at a production capacity of 75% of its existing capacity keeping in view the variation of above mentioned quantities due to change in mix product, cleaning in process (CIP) procedures etc. The above recommendations have already been mentioned in the reply dated 08.05.2024 of the Board.
9. That considering the report given by the team of officers (vide letter no. 1460 dated 10.04.2024), it was decided by the Board to grant consents to operate to the industrial unit under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 at 75% of its installed capacity. Accordingly, the industrial unit M/s Nectar Lifesciences Unit-2, Village Haibatpur, Derabassi, has been granted consents to operate at 75% of its installed capacity by the Punjab Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide letter no. CTOW/Renewal/SAS/2024/24871524 dated 02/05/2024 and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide letter no.
CTOA/Renewal/SAS/2024/24871451 dated 02/05/2024, both valid upto 30/09/2024, subject to certain conditions including the conditions recommended by the committee of officers in its report. A copy of consent to operate granted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is enclosed as Annexure-Eand a copy of consent to operate granted under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is enclosed as Annexure-F.
10. That the Punjab Pollution Control Board is monitoring the functioning of the industrial unit for compliance of the 38 environmental norms at regular intervals. As and when the industry is found violating the provisions of the environmental norms, appropriate action against the industrial unit is taken in accordance with the Law. It is pertinent to mention here that during the hearing of the case on 17.11.2023, the Punjab Pollution Control Board had encashed the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs of the industry for violation of the environmental norms and further directions were issued for submission of bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakhs. The industry has submitted a new bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs as an assurance to comply with the environmental laws. Production capacity of the unit was also reduced by 25% and the industry was directed to operate at 75% capacity vide directions issued on 04.01.2024.
11. That the Punjab Pollution Control Board will abide by the directions issued by the Hon'ble Tribunal in letter and spirit and will also keep a vigil upon functioning of the industrial unit for compliance of the environmental norms. In case any violation is observed, the Board will take appropriate action against the industrial unit is accordance with the Law."
28. PSPCB has appended certain documents to the written submissions but in our view, said documents cannot be taken into considerations since only those documents which are already on record can be looked into by this Tribunal and a party is not entitled to place any new document along with written submission/brief note submitted after the hearing is concluded. Therefore, we are confining our consideration to the submissions made in the brief note excluding the documents appended with it.
29. Submission of PSPCB is that though, there was violations on the part of proponent/respondent 3 in compliance of environmental laws but directions were issued from time to time and now the situation has improved and no further violation has been found, therefore, no stringent action is required to be taken at this stage.
39
30. ISSUES: In our view, after perusal of the record and the arguments advanced on behalf of PSPCB (Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 has not advanced any arguments even orally during the course of the hearing on 15.05.2024), following issues have arisen which require adjudication by this Tribunal:
(I) Whether respondent 3 is continuously violating environmental norms and laws in operating its pharmaceutical industry in question?
(II) Whether any appropriate stringent action has been taken by PSPCB against respondent 3 or it has failed to discharge its statutory functions?
(III) What appropriate order is required to be passed in the matter necessary for protection of environment?
31. We propose to consider all the three issues together. ISSUES I, II AND III:
32. The industry in question is a bulk drugs manufacturing unit. It was granted CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 vide PSPCB's letter dated 20.12.2022 valid up to 30.06.2023 for manufacturing Menthol Crystals, Menthol flakes, Menthol liquid/powder, Cefixime Trihydrate, Cefuroxime Axetil (Amorphous), Cefpodoximne Proxetil (Coated), Cefpodoximne Proxetil, Cefditoren Pivoxil, Cefdinir, Ceftriaxone Sodium, Cefotaxime Sodium, Cefepime Injection, Cefuroxime sodium, Cephalothin Sodium, Cefazolin Sodium, Cefprozil, Cefoxitin Sodium, Ceftiofur, Ceftaroline, Metformin HCL, Cefcapine Pivoxil, Sodium Carbonate, L- Arginine, Ceftazime Pentahydrate, Ceftibutene Hydrate and Cefotium HCL. 40
33. Most of these drugs are is in the category of antibiotics, for example, Ceftibutene Hydrate is an antibacterial drug that is a third generation cephalosporin antibiotic. Information available on public domain in respect of Cephalosporin antibiotics shows that the waste water containing Cephalosporins antibiotics can be highly toxic and difficult to degrade. Transformation products of Cephalosporins can be more toxic and persistent than original drugs. Cephalosporin resistant pathogens and their genes can be found in water. The same can be traced back to hospitals, firms and sewage systems. Antibiotics discharged into STP were found to have not been fully removed and even induced further propagation of antibiotic resistance which might improve level of antibiotic resistance in downstream receiving water bodies. Hence, it is of great importance to remove Cephalosporins from water to control propagation of antibiotic resistance. It is thus necessary to examine effluent or waste water generated by an industrial unit like respondent 3 as to whether treated water contains the residue of the above antibiotic medicine or not. A mere examination of COD, BOD, TSS, etc. will not be sufficient.
34. Joint Committee in its inspection dated 23.06.2023 (Report dated 15.07.2023) found that respondent 3 has two units i.e., unit 1 and 2. Inspection was conducted at unit 2. It was found that effluent generated at unit 1 was also carried to unit 2 and thereat, waste water/effluent was treated. No permission or document has been shown which has permitted respondent 3 not to treat waste generated at the particular unit but to transfer it from one unit to another and to treat effluent of both the units together. The unit had two working boilers and one standby boiler. It used rice husk, wood chips, sarkanda and wood chopped nada as fuel. The fresh boiler ash was being dumped in the premises itself as landfill. Joint 41 Committee found that there were three solvent recovery plants operating in the unit where it had provided Volatile Organic Compound Meters but no total Organic Carbon Meter was installed though it was required in view of SOP of CPCB. Large number of spent carbon atoms were formed lying in open and some were even corroded. Unit had two borewells along with piezometers but during inspection, one piezometer was found non- functional. Unit had one incinerator with a 4.22 TPD capacity with quencher and scrubber as APCD but there was no arrangement for disposal of scrubber water into ETP. Even OCEMS was not installed on the incinerator. Huge quantity of hazardous waste of category 36.2 i.e., filter beds were found lying near incinerator area in open and not in a dedicated hazardous waste room. No arrangement was made by unit for drying sludge left at the bottom of the scrubber water tank. One high TDS effluent storage tank of 300 KL capacity was provided by industry for storage of high TDS effluent generated from its various sections like Oral- D, Oral-F, Oral-C, Oral-H, SRP-A, SRP-B and SRP-C but the tank was found to be leaking and waste water was found collected on ground. Joint Committee also found that MEE was not operating efficiently. There was in glands of motors of pipeline carrying MEE concentrate to agitated thin film dryer. Hazardous waste room for storage of hazardous waste of category 5.1, 36.2, 36.1, 28.1, 28.3, 37.2 and 35.3 having compartments was provided at the unit but also this room were found damp from inside; there was no proper stacking of hazardous waste; date of generation of hazardous waste was not mentioned on bags; bag number was not mentioned; and even quantity of hazardous waste was not mentioned on bags. Further Committee found hazardous waste of category 33.1 stored in open and no dedicated room was provided for its storage. Unit claimed 42 that old ETP is not in use and has rendered redundant. Joint Committee found collection tank of capacity of 90KL of ETP filled with effluent and sample collected and tested showed presence of low Total Dissolved Dolid in the effluent. Other components of old ETP were also found filled with effluent and sludge and motor used for disposal of wastewater to newly install STP was found non-functional. Solvent drums, including, empty drums were found lying on ground; most were filled with solvent and found corroded. Joint Committee collected sample downstream the drain coming from village Haripur, Hinduan and found that there was some increase in parameters after the drain passes through the industry though the Committee said that the increase was not significant.
35. We enquired from Learned Counsel for PSPCB as to when the industrial affluent was found meeting all the parameters to which no reply was given.
36. The question of increase in the contamination does not arise and there is no question of considering whether the increase is significant or not for the reason that the impact on the drain water depends on various factors including volume of water and discharge from industry. The finding that there was increase in the parameters down side the drain is self- evident to shows that the effluent discharged by the industry after the alleged treatment was not as per the prescribed standards and had violated the same.
37. Moreover, it is also a fact that when the report was submitted on 15.07.2023 by Joint Committee, consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 had already expired, being valid up to 30.06.2023 and still unit was continuously functioning. There was no check by PSPCB and the unit 43 was allowed to operate without consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 on and after 01.07.2020. Violation on the part of industry was found in the past also and this is evident from the document filed as Annexure-A to Action taken report/Status report dated 13.10.2023 filed by PSPCB which shows that an inspection was made by the officers of PSPCB of the industry on 08.11.2021 and it found emission of intermittently black smoke from the stack of boiler; stack emission sample was collected and tested and found beyond prescribed limits; the effluent sample from ETP inlet and outlet were collected and analysis report shows that concentration of effluent samples beyond the prescribed limits; new ETP was in partial operation; no proper distribution network in plantation area to avoid any unscientific and illegal discharge into drain passing through plantation area was provided; industry was partially pumping its treated effluent through flexible pipes across the drain for irrigation purpose; and MEE installed by unit was found no-operational. Several further violations were found including failure on the part of the industry to install the ZLD systems. Notice regarding non-compliance was given by Chairman of PSPCB and order for revocation/cancellation of CTO was issued on 11.03.2022. After affording opportunity of oral hearing before Chairman on 01.08.2022, Chairman of PSPCB took following steps:
(i) The industry shall operate its ZLD system and pollution control devices regularly and efficiently.
(ii) The industry shall not discharge any treated/untreated effluent outside its premises at any time.
(iii) Industry shall not use/discharge its treated/untreated effluent in rice husk dumping yard for quenching purposes.44
(iv) Further decision was taken advising the industry to re-apply for CTO for existing process/quantity.
38. Again, a show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2022 before refusal of CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and opportunity of hearing was granted on 11.11.2022. Chairman, PSPCB decided to impose environmental compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs upon industry. Industry was restrained from dumping fly ash within its premises and directed to transport and dump fly ash in a scientific manner on another land owned by the industry measuring 100 acres at village Nimbua. Entire sludge generated shall be disposed to TSDF Nimbua and no sludge shall be disposed of in the premises under any circumstances. Order dated 22.09.2023 (p/23) mentioned that industry was not seriously complying with the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981, wilfully causing water and air pollution in the vicinity as well as operating its unit without valid consent and thus had violated the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 intentionally and deliberately.
39. On a complaint made by one Mr. Sonu, Panch, village Hairpur Hinduan, on 22.06.2023, officers of PSPCB visited the site of the unit and found that water was coming outside the premises of the industry, entering storm water drain laid near Rajasthan Liquor Limited and pungent smell of Ammonia was felt. A representative of industry informed that there was leakage of Ammonia gas in Vapour absorption machine in utility block at around 7:00 pm. As a result, thereof, industry spread fresh water to supress Ammonia gas and the same was coming out from the premises of industrial unit. The officers however, visited utility block of the industry and found no release of Ammonia gas from Vapour absorption 45 machine though water was flowing from the utility block to the main gate of the industry. No information was given with regard to leakage of Ammonia to PSPCB though it is a flammable gas, may form explosive mixture with air, displace oxygen and cause rapid suffocation, harmful if inhaled, causes severe skin burns and eye damage and very toxic to aquatic life. Though Ammonia dissolves abundantly in water but contaminated water with Ammonia has to be contained and prevented from being discharged to any sewer or drain being harmful to aquatic life. Industry was found to have failed in checking discharge of Ammonia contained water and it was found spread outside the premises.
40. In view of the above violations found in Joint Committee Report dated 15.07.2023, Chairman, PSPCB took a decision on 01.09.2023 to encash bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs of the industry and directed it to submit a new bank guarantee of same amount.
41. In the report dated 04.01.2024 filed by PSPCB again, we find that though industry applied for renewal of CTO but notice was issued for refusal of renewal of CTO affording opportunity of hearing on 17.11.2023. Meaning thereby till this time, unit functioned without CTO under Water Act, 1974.
42. The unit had also not attained ZLD status despite clear condition to this effect.
43. It was also found that industry did not show that ETP installed are based on ZLD technology. Chairman, PSPCB however took a decision on 17.11.2023 allowing CTO to the industry for a short period upto 31.01.2024. Environment Engineer was required to encash back 46 guarantee of Rs. 15 Lakhs deposited by the industry and the industry was asked to furnish a further bank guarantee of Rs. 25 lakhs. A committee was constituted to visit the industry and submit a technical report with regard to water auditing, ground water study in and around the industry, adequacy/ETP/MEE whether ZLD technology has been adopted etc. In view of the Chairman, PSPCB's decision dated 17.11.2023, CTO for 02 months was issued to the industry on 01.12.2023.
44. The Committee constituted by Chairman, PSPCB also visited the industry on 22.12.2023 and found various violations therein which we have already noted above in para 12. Further, the above Committee also visited the industry on 29.12.2023 and again found various violations which we have reproduced above in para 13.
45. The Committee made combined observations based on the inspection dated 22.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 and said that water auditing could not be done due to absence of proper meeting of standards. Low TDS and High TDS were also found not being transferred to treatment plant/MEE. The Committee also drew an inference that industry has not achieved ZLD status. PSPCB in view of the above report, directed to reduce production of the unit by 25% vide letter dated 04.01.2024 and also issued certain other directions we have referred to in para 15 above.
46. We further find that after the short-term CTO granted for 02 months which expired on 31.01.2024, no renewal was granted yet the industry was allowed to function on and after 01.02.2024. Counsel for industry stated that it had applied for renewal before expiry i.e., on 18.01.2024 but could not dispute that the application for renewal was already returned by PSPCB on 24.01.2024 since the application was found incomplete and 47 thereafter, the industry failed to submit renewal application before expiry of CTO. It later applied for CTO on 14.02.2024 but PSPCB online system was not functional during 14.02.2024 to 21.02.2024 and the application could not be processed. Later when application was processed, in view of the violations noted during the visit made on 06.01.2024 and 06.02.2024, a show cause notice was issued on 15.05.2024 for refusal to grant of CTO. The industry was allowed personal hearing on 22.03.2024 but before that a team of PSPCB visited the site of the industry on 20.03.2024 and its report was submitted on 10.04.2024 which stated that industry is treating domestic effluent in an ETP installed in industry. 04 acres of plantation was provided to utilise partial quantity of treated water. CGWA permission for extraction of ground water was taken on 01.11.2011 but thereafter there was no renewal of consent either from CGWA or from Competent Authority i.e., Punjab Water Regulation and Development Authority constituted under Punjab Water Resources (Management and Regulation) Act, 2020. The water audit sought to be carried out by the team of officers of PSPCB has stated in its report dated 10.04.2024 that in the month of January 2024, the production was 47.6% while in February 2024, it was 70.70% but extraction of ground water in January 2024 was 995 KLD but reduced in February 2024 to 984 KLD. The production increased substantially but the use of water did not increase and instead decreased. This discrepancy could not be explained either by the said team of the industry nor before us by the learned counsel appearing for respondent 3.
47. Report shows that industry sought to explain that it used fresh water for making batch randomly but we do not find the above stand to be satisfactory at all and of the view that the meter installed on the borewells are not being regularly maintained and in order to keep the extraction of 48 water within the permissible limit i.e., 1015 KLD, the above figures have been shown within that range forgetting the fact that production has increased substantially. Industry had to explain as to why water consumption did not increase but it failed. It shows a clear manipulation on the part of the industry in maintaining record to show a paper compliance but not in fact.
48. For treatment of water, industry has installed 2 MEEs of the capacity of 350 KLD and 90 KLD and the above team in its report dated 10.04.2024 has stated that only 1 MEE of 350 KLD was found operational. When extraction of water is more than 970 KLD, it could not be explained as to how running of MEE of 350 KLD was sufficient to take care of such huge quantity of water even if the quantity of waste water is taken to be 70-80% of the fresh water used though normally it is more than that.
49. Report dated 10.04.2024 has also found that HTDS effluent taken in 350 KLD MEE for the month of September 2023 was 277.36 KLD though production was 30.07%. In February 2024 when production was 70.79%, the quantity of HTDS effluent taken to MEE had reduced to 260.48 KLD and again the discrepancy remains unexplained which shows improper maintenance of record or variation in record so as to keep the things apparently within the permitted limit, though in fact the same is not true.
50. ETP installed by the industry is of the capacity of 1500 KLD. Again, effluent taken to ETP in September 2023 when the production was much less i.e., 30.07% but in February 2024 varied from 1044 KLD to 1070 KLD. It is also not corresponding to the production and this discrepancy also remains unexplained.
49
51. Officers of the team have also mentioned in the report dated 10.04.2024 that to check the correctness of the unit, they monitored LTDS effluent for some time and found that the quantity of the said effluent to ETP was to the tune of 1173 KLD which was not shown by the industry in its record. The excess of effluent water beyond the permitted quantity from bore well was sought to be explained that the industry is using treated water partially in cooling tower as also for plantation but here also, we find it difficult to have the figures tallied in as much as the quantity of water extracted everyday plus treated water is much more. Such quantity of water has not been found either in ETP or MEE if put together. The explanation of use of water in plantation is also not correct since such use is not possible everyday. This is also fortified from the report where it is said that at the time of inspection, no treated water was found used on the land for plantation and the industry explained that for plantation purposes, regular watering is not required. From the above discussion, we have no doubt that the excess water is being discharged by the industry in the drain which is passing near the industry and that is the reason that the parameters were found on the downstream slightly higher, by the earlier visiting teams.
52. In the above backdrop and considering the entire record, we are clearly of the view that the industry has failed to comply with the provisions of environmental laws particularly, Water Act, 1974 and has consistently violated its provisions and its ZLD status has not been achieved till date.
53. PSPCB has allowed the industry to continue to function though CTO has been sought to be revoked or not renewed from time to time but the 50 fact remains that the industry has functioned without interruption throughout. PSPCB has not taken any stringent action in the matter by imposing adequate environmental compensation computed on the basis of the turn over of the industry and has also not taken criminal action for prosecution of the violator under the Statute. Thus, we are satisfied that PSPCB has also failed to discharge its statutory functions adequately and effectively.
54. Questions I and II, therefore, are answered against the respondents.
55. The question now is as to what appropriate order is required to be passed in the matter. When there is continuous violation of environmental laws particularly, Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981, same also constitute an offence, therefore, PSPCB ought to have initiated prosecution against the violator. Further for causing pollution of water and air, by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays', environmental compensation also is liable to be paid by the proponent.
56. The question next arises is as to what principle should be followed for computation of environmental compensation in the present case. Methodology for Computation of Environmental Compensation:
57. The question of assessment of environmental compensation includes the principles/factors/aspects, necessary to be considered for computing/assessing/determining environmental compensation. Besides judicial precedents, we find little assistance from Statute. Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010 talks of relief of compensation and restitution. It confers wide powers on this Tribunal to grant relief by awarding compensation for 51 the loss suffered by individual(s) and/or for damage caused to environment. Section 15 reads as under:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution-(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide-
a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
b) for restitution of property damaged;
c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as
the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and Compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section of (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the' applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may, be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority.
58. Sub-section 1 of Section 15 enables Tribunal to make an order providing relief and compensation to (i) the victims of pollution, (ii) other 52 environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I.
59. Tribunal is also conferred power to pass an order providing relief for restitution of property damaged. Section 15(1)(c) enables Tribunal to pass an order providing relief for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as Tribunal may think fit. Section 15 sub-section 4 says that Tribunal may divide compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedules II, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment so as to provide compensation or relief, (i) to the claimants and (ii) for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
60. Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 gives a list of heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be granted. It has 14 heads in total out of which items (a) to (f), (l), (m) and (n) relate to loss, damage etc. sustained to the person or individual or their property. Items (i) to (k) relate to harm, damage, destruction etc. of environment or environmental system including soil, air, water, land, and eco-system. Items (i) to (k) of Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 are as under:
"(i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna;
(j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards;
(k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;"53
61. Items (g) and (h) relate to expense and cost incurred by State in providing relief to affected person; and loss caused in connection with activity causing damage.
62. The damage to environment covers a very wide variety of nature as is evident from definition of 'Environment' under Section 2(c) which is inclusive and says; 'environment includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property'.
63. Even Rules framed under NGT Act, 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of environmental compensation is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation. Computation of environmental compensation may involve some degree of subjectivity but broadly it must be based on objective considerations as it saddles financial liability upon the violator.
64. Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, Environmental Clearance under Environment Impact 54 Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.
65. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organizations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
66. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
67. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partial restoration/remediation/rejuvenation.
68. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental restoration/remediation/rejuvenation should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be 55 preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive". The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
69. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human- health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human- health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
70. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and further comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description. 56
71. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied. As the term suggest, compensation means a return for loss or damage sustained. Therefore, it must always be just and not based on a whim or capricious.
72. In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation. In some cases, a lump sum amount has been imposed.
73. In an article, 'the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics' by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') can be applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environmental pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z), where z denotes the pollution level. Further, clean- up cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation. 57
74. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and this principle must also be given due consideration and be taken care.
75. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'Sustainable Development', 'Precautionary Approach' and 'Polluter Pays', etc. In such circumstances, it is the ultimate responsibility of Court's to assess and compute environmental compensation, rationally.
76. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though 58 there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.
77. This Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2018 passed in OA 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others observed that "CPCB may also assess and recover compensation for damage to the environment and said fund may be kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment".
78. Pursuant thereto, CPCB published a Report on 15.07.2019 suggesting methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment. The above Guidelines do not encompass individuals, statutory institutions and Government etc. Since in the present case, we are concerned with statutory bodies, therefore, we are not going into the details of the said Guidelines as the same have no application to the present case.
79. In some cases, compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example;
(i) In Ajay Kumar Negi vs. Union of India, OA No. 183/2013, Rs.5 Crores was imposed.
59
(ii) In Naim Shariff vs. M/s Das Offshore, Original Application no. 15(THC) of 2016, Rs.25 Crores was imposed.
(iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India, Rs.25 Crores was imposed.
80. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra), Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 209 and held that 10% of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was an appropriate compensation given that mining could not completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a special purpose vehicle, i.e., "Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund" for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.
81. In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 257, Tribunal imposed Rs.195 Crores compensation since construction project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it Rs.100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher. Supreme Court also upheld Rs.5 Crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost.
82. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others, (2019) 18 SCC 494, Supreme Court affirmed imposition of environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent. 60 Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where project proponent had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by project proponent and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of project proponent.
83. On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, recently Supreme Court in Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SLP (Civil) No. 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. 'Polluter Pays' principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of "sustainable development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
84. Recently, in respect of pollution of River Yamuna due to violations caused by Nagar Nigam, Agra and Nagar Nigam, Mathura-Vrindavan in OA 840/2022, Sanjay Kulshresthra vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others and OA 773/2022, Rajesh Pareek vs. Government of Uttar 61 Pradesh & Others passed on 24.04.2024, this Tribunal has computed environmental compensation by applying the rate of compensation at Rs. 0.01 per MLD per day since that was a case of discharge of untreated sewage in River Yamuna by a statutory body.
85. Considering the matter in the light of above principles, in the present case, since proponent is a manufacturing industry, the law laid down by Supreme Court that the compensation may be founded on the turn over of the industry, in our view, would be a valid principle to be applied by also considering the paying capacity of the industry.
86. We find that no information regarding turn over has been made available to us either by respondent industry or by PSPCB. However, from the information available from public domain, we find that proponent-M/s Nector Life Sciences Limited itself has placed its profits and loss account of period of 2023-24 (01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024) showing total revenue as Rs.1698.66 Crores. Total revenue shown in the last 05 years in the financial statement of proponent is as under:
Sl. No. Financial year Total revenue
1 2019-20 Rs.2367.16 Crores
2 2020-21 Rs.1545.62 Crores
3 2021-22 Rs.1679.55 Crores
4 2022-23 Rs.1566.85 Crores
5 2023-24 Rs.1698.66 Crores
87. Based on the above information, even if we compute environmental compensation at ½ percent of the turn over i.e., 0.5%, it will come to the following amount in the last 05 years:
62
Sl. Financial Total revenue 0.5% environmental No. Year compensation of turn over 1 2019-20 Rs.2367.16 Crores Rs.11.83 Crores 2 2020-21 Rs.1545.62 Crores Rs.7.72 Crores 3 2021-22 Rs.1679.55 Crores Rs.8.39 Crores 4 2022-23 Rs.1566.85 Crores Rs.7.83 Crores 5 2023-24 Rs.1698.66 Crores Rs.8.49 Crores
88. Since in the present financial year, the amount of environmental compensation at 0.5% of turn over comes to about Rs.8.5 Crores, we find it appropriate to impose an interim environmental compensation of Rs. 5 Crores upon respondent 3 which shall be paid/deposited by it with PSPCB within 02 months.
89. We also direct PSPCB to determine final amount of environmental compensation after collecting information with regard to turn over from the proponent of the respective year when the violations have been found and to impose environmental compensation for such period separately after due opportunity of hearing to the proponent. This exercise shall also be completed within two months.
90. The amount of interim compensation as directed above shall be adjusted in the final amount of environmental compensation which shall be determined and computed by PSPCB. After determining final amount of environmental compensation, PSPCB shall recover if finally computed environmental compensation is more than the interim environmental compensation. In case, the final amount is less than interim compensation, the excess would be refunded. Needful as the case may be 63 shall be done within two months after finalising the amount of environmental compensation.
91. The amount of interim environmental compensation/ final environmental compensation shall be utilised for remediation/rejuvenation/restoration of damaged environment in the area concerned on the basis of a restoration plan which shall be prepared by Joint Committee comprising PSPCB; CPCB; and, District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali who shall prepare the plan within 02 months and execute the same within 03 months after realisation/recovery/deposit of environmental compensation as directed above.
92. PSPCB is also directed to make a periodical inspection commencing from first week of December 2024 for the next 06 months of proponent's unit to ensure strict compliance of environmental laws on the part of proponent. If it is found that proponent is still violating environmental laws, PSPCB shall exercise of its power of issuing directions with regard to closure of the industry till it prepare itself to comply environmental laws particularly, Water Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981 and EP Act, 1986.
93. PSPCB is also directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the proponent for past violations and if any future violation is found, for the same also, in accordance with law, without any further delay.
94. Question III is answered accordingly.
95. OA is disposed of with the above observation, findings and directions.
64
96. Copy be forwarded to PSPCB, CPCB and District Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali for information and compliance.
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER November 21, 2024 Original Application No.173/2023 R 65