National Green Tribunal
M/S. Thanika Water Plant Rep.By Its ... vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 20 December, 2022
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. 59 to 72 of 2022(SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s. Sri Balamurugan Traders,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. R. Parthiban,
Office at No. 133/2, Cowarapet,
TT. Mottur, Kamalapuram Post,
Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Junior Engineer/South/Gudiyatham
No.21/27, VOC Street, Nadupuet,
Gudiyatham, Vellore- 632 602
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Sri Vari Food Products,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. R. Rajesh,
Office at No. 33, Bangalore Road,
Mottur Village, Vellore District- 632010.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer (O&M)
TANGEDCO, Virinijipuram,
No. 251/111, Sivan Badai Street, Virinijipuram,
Vellore- 632 104.
1
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Select Mineral Water,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. Srikanth,
Office at S. No. 209, M.C. Road,
Poigai Village, Sathiyamangalam Post,
Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District- 632 114.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer (O&M)
TANGEDCO, Virinijipuram,
No. 251/111, Sivan Badai Street, Virinijipuram,
Vellore- 632 104.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. PSD Aqua,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. G. Barasuraman,
Office at S. No. 147/1D1, Mel Street,
Pallalakuppam Village and Post,
Pernabut Taluk, Vellore District- 635 805
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Junior Engineer/Melpatty/2/83.
Chekkkumedu Street, Melpatty Post,
Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Sathya Drinking water,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. R. Sujatha,
2
No. 24/8B2, Sarkkal Village,
Masigam Post, Pernambut Taluk,
Vellore District- 635 805.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Junior Engineer/South/Pernambut,
11/11-KV, S.S. Complex,
Pernambut, Vellore- 635801
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Vellore Aqua Products,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. M. Ganesh,
Office at S. No. 157/2B, Sallavoor Village,
Perriyapudur Post, Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District- 632 059
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer/Urban/Katpadi,
Vallimalai Road, Kapadi,
Vellore- 632 104.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Arun Packaged Drinking Water,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. C. Arun kumar,
No. 818/7, K.K. Kottai, Agaramcheri Village,
Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District- 635 804.
...Appellant(s)
3
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Asst Engineer/Agaramcheri.
No.4/8E, MC Road, Agaramcheri,
Vellore- 635 804.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s Sri Bagavathi Water Plant,
Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. A. Neelavathy,
Office at No. 224/3, A.S. Nagar, Kannikapuram Village,
Virupactchipuram Post, Kaniyambadi Block,
Vellore District- 632 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Asst Engineer(O&M)/Bagayan,
No. 132, Salai Vinayagar Street,
Kamalatchipuram, Bagayam,
Vellore- 632 002.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. ARV Rajesh Minerals,
Rep. by its Proprietrix Mr. A. Rajesh,
Office at No. 19, S.R. Garden,
Arani Main Road, Thuttipattu Village,
Bagayam Vellore District- 632 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
4
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer (O&M)/Bagayan,
No. 132, Salai Vinayagar Street,
Kamalatchipuram, Bagayam,
Vellore- 632 002.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Vellore Aqua & Food Products,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. K. Ekambaram,
Office at Plot No. 74, Munirathinam Nagar,
Vandranthangal Village and Post,
Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District- 632 059.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer/Urban/Katpadi,
Vallimalai Road, Katpadi,
Vellore- 632 007.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Shree Varsha Enterprises,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Dheenadayalan,
Office at S. No.400/2A1, Sri Lakshmi Nagar,
Vadakapattarai Village, Melalathur Post,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District- 623 602.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
5
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Junior Engineer/Melalathur,
48, Post Office street, Melalathur Village & Post,
Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore- 635 806.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Mohan Aqua Farm,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. C. Mohan,
S.No. 479, 480, 484, Ganganathi Road,
Karasamangalam Post- 632 202.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer/O&M/Latheri,
LMC Nagar, Latheri,
Vellore- 632 202.
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Thambi Aqua Industries,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. C.M. Thambidurai,
Office at No. 475, Dhanammal Nagar,
Palavansanthu Village, Vellore District- 632 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer/O&M/Bagayam,
No. 132, Salai Vinayagar Street,
Kamalatchipuram, Bagayam,
Vellore- 632 002.
6
...Respondent(s)
With
M/s. Thanika Water Plant,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Kanimozhiyan,
Office at S.No. 183/2B, 2D, Arani-Vellore Road,
Thuthipet Village, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.
2. The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
Auxillum College Road, (Opp. To Auxillum College),
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
Vellore EDC, TANGEDCO,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore- 632 006.
4. The Assistant Engineer/O&M,
TANGEDCO,
Sathumadurai, Arni Road, Sathumadurai,
Vellore District.
...Respondent(s)
(In all Cases)
For Appellant(s): Mr. R. Devaraj, Mr. S.A. Gandhi, Mr. P. Udaya
and Mr. R. Sundar Singh.
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2.
Judgment Reserved on: 7th December, 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 20th December, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. Water is one of the important natural resources on earth. Water is second necessary substance after air which is necessary for the survival of all the living-beings, living organisms on the planet. Though most of the earth surface is covered by water, 97% of the water is in the ocean which is saline and not safe for drinking. Only 03% of water is fresh and suitable for drinking. The said fresh water is stored as ground water and 7 surface water. The water available in the ponds, rivers, lakes are surface water and the said water has become impossible for human consumption as it contains various micro-organisms and other contaminations that will have adverse effect on the health of humans, plants and animals. The contaminated surface water has necessitated the need for the water treatment plants. These water treatment plants improve the quality of the water by various processes and remove the suspended solids and harmful chemicals. It is also only one of the ways to introduce the water back into the cycle by sending it back to the ground. The decreasing availability of fresh water has generated the need for purification of the waste water on the earth. It assumes the importance because the availability of fresh water is limited on earth and the demand is high.
2. Accordingly the water treatment plants in the State of Tamil Nadu also had cropped up. The appellants in all these appeals are running business of manufacturing packaged drinking water units in the district of Vellore. They have been doing the business of packaging drinking water, extracting water not from the surface but from the ground for commercial purpose without the permission of the Government. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued notice under Section 33 of the Water Act and directed closure and disconnection of the power supplies to these appellant‟s company. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the above appeals.
3. The issue of extraction of ground water resources of Tamil Nadu has been taken care by the Government by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 52, Public Works Department dated 02.03.2012. The said G.O has categorised the blocks of over-exploited, critical, semi-critical and safe for ground water development in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu was particular that no scheme should be formulated in over-exploited and critical blocks and in semi-critical and safe blocks, all the schemes should be formulated in consultation with the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre of Water Resource Organisation in Public Works Department. Thus, the Government had directed the rain water harvesting and artificial recharge schemes to be carried out in all the categories of blocks and priority shall be given to over-exploited and critical blocks to avoid further deterioration. As per the G.O, all the over- exploited and critical blocks as on March, 2009, assessment may be declared as notified blocks („A‟ category stage of ground water extraction is 90% and above) and all the semi-critical and safe blocks 8 may be declared as notified blocks („B‟ category stage of ground water extraction is below 89%).
4. The Government had directed that no scheme should be formulated in over-exploited and critical blocks which are notified as „A‟ category. In semi-critical and safe blocks which are notified as „B‟ category, all the schemes should be formulated through State Ground Water Data Centre of Water Resources Department and the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre who will issue NoC for ground water clearance. In the process, the Government had directed to exclude the ground water drawal for domestic purposes by individual households, domestic infrastructure project, Government drinking water supply schemes and non-water base industries i.e. industries which do not require water either as raw material or for other processing.
5. In this regard there was a suo-motu application taken up by this Tribunal and registered as O.A. No. 40 of 2013. The said O.A along with several applications were disposed by a common order dated 29.01.2016 in the following manner:
"3) The packaged drinking water units in the State are divided into three categories as shown below:
I) In whose favour no interim orders were granted and who do not carry on any operation i.e. the units shall be kept closed; II) The units permitted to have electricity connection only for the protection of the membrane and for the maintenance of the machinery;
III) Units which are permitted to continue their operatins on the basis of the conditions imposed by the PWD and to be operated for a limited number of hours per day in view of the need of the public at large and also the employees' of the units whose livelihood depends on it."
6. The abovesaid order was passed subject to the disposal of the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition challenging the G.O Ms. No. 142 dated 23.07.2014.
7. The above referred G.O Ms. No. 142 dated 23.07.2014 was issued by the Government for effective management of ground water regulation for management of ground water and issue of „No Objection certificate‟ for extraction of ground water in Tamil Nadu State. The said G.O categorically sets out the categories which are exempted from applying for NoC for drawl and transportation of ground water. The categories which are required to get NOC for drawl and transportation of ground water includes "water based industries (i.e. those industries which use water as raw material like water bottling units etc.,) are eligible for NOC 9 in safe and semi-critical blocks and not in any other category of blocks". The G.O further stated that in case the industries which are already been established and functioning in critical and over-exploited blocks, keeping in view the investments already made on plants and machineries, renewal of the NOC will be done after the District Collector/Chief Engineer State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data centre satisfies himself about the provisions of the artificial recharge scheme structures to recharge the ground water. Under the non-permissible categories, drawl and transportation of ground water for water based industries (i.e. those industries which use water as raw material) is not permitted in critical and over-exploited blocks. Hence, water based industries are not eligible to get NOC in over-exploited and critical blocks. Under the same G.O., conditions for processing of applications forms were also set out. The main condition was that the land in which drawal wells have been proposed by an industry for issuance of NOC for drawal of ground water, should either be own property of the owner/proprietor of industry/organisation registered in his name or leased property taken on lease by the owner in his name and duly and properly registered. No other mode of accessibility or permissibility of land and well will be entitled to claim or issue NOC. The issue of NOC will be processed by the Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre adhering to the consolidated guidelines, 2011 dated 28.01.2011. Thus, the Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre is the authority to issue NOC/license by imposing conditions and also empowered to reject or decline any of the request on technical grounds after scrutiny.
8. In addition to the above conditions, the G.O also included general condition that since the ground water is a State subject, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and ISI should issue the permission only after obtaining the permission/license from State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre. The general conditions also included imposition of necessary condition to construct adequate recharge structures to recharge stipulated quantity of water with respect to drawl of ground water.
9. The NOC/license for drawl of water should be compulsorily renewed every year for water based industries and to be renewed once in three years for non-water based industries. The said G.O 142 dated 23.07.2014 was challenged before the Hon‟ble High Court and final order 10 was passed on 03.10.2018. After hearing the Government and the aggrieved parties, the batch of writ petitions were disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court on 03.10.2018 confirming the G.O. 142 dated 23.07.2014. The Hon‟ble High Court had specifically held as follows:
"(2) The respondents are directed not to grant licence, No Objection Certificate (NOC) or permission for the commercial establishments/ person to extract ground water for commercial usage in the absence of fixation of Water Flow Meter on the Board Outlet, which is to be inspected.
(3) The respondents are directed to inspect the functional quality and other established standards of the Flow Meters fixed by the persons, who all are applying for permissions/No Objection Certificate (NOC) and at the time of granting permission/NO Objection Certificate (NOC), the Flow Meter should be sealed properly by the respondents/Public Works Department (PWD) officials.
(4) The Flow Meter must be sealed in such a way to prevent any tampering by any person, Quantum of Water to be extracted by individuals, are to be fixed periodically as per the assessment to be made by the PWD, Authorities as per the Regulations. (5) The respondents are directed to measure the quantum of water extracted by the establishments/persons by taking meter reading every Month and accordingly, the same is to be regulated. (6) The respondents are directed to follow all other terms and conditions fixed for grant of licence/permission for Extraction of Ground Water for commercial usage as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 142, Public Works Department dated 23.07.2014."
10. Aggrieved by the above order, the Writ Appeal No. 3344 of 2019 etc., batch is filed before the Hon‟ble High Court and it is said to be pending. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department had issued yet another G.O for dynamic ground water resource assessment and categorisation of over-exploiting, critical, semi-critical, safe and saline/poor quality based on the assessment in Tamil Nadu by G.O. Ms. No. 161 dated 20.10.2019.In the said G.O, the Government had decided to approve the categorisation of the Revenue Firkas in the State based on the Estimation of the Dynamic Ground Water Resources as on March, 2017. Accordingly, the Government approved the categorisation of Revenue Firkas in state as over-exploited, critical, semi-critical, safe and saline/poor quality as detailed in the annexure based on the Dynamic Ground Water Resources as on March, 2017 which shall be notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.
11. In this regard, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board had invited our attention to the order passed by the Division Bench of Hon‟ble Madras High Court dated 09.01.2020. The said order had directed the authorities concerned of the PWD to ensure complete closure of the units manufacturing purified water which do not hold NOC or permission from the concerned Department either by PWD or CMWSSB for such extraction of ground water and directed the compliance report to 11 be filed. The said units which are closed under that order will not be allowed to re-operate and extract water unless and until they strictly comply with the conditions and obtain due permission to extract ground water. The Hon‟ble High Court had also passed subsequent order on the same batch on 19.11.2020 in which it is stated that the unit drawing water from the critical area should not be allowed to bring water to the water purifying units to carry on their purification operations and those unit having due NOC in their favour in terms of G.O. MS. No. 142 only will be allowed for bringing water. The order also had categorically mentioned that no illegal withdrawal of water and illegal transport of water drawn from the units situated in critical areas should be prevented. The entire unit shall be immediately closed and their power supply shall be disconnected forthwith and they shall not be allowed to operate without specific leave of the Court.
12. Coming to the instant cases, most of the units are MSME units and NOC was granted by the local panchayat to set up borewells to extract ground water and carry on the operation. According to them at the time of commencement of the units, there was no area categorization for extraction of ground water. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Vellore had sent a letter stating that the unit is discharging water and polluting without obtaining consent to operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The show-cause notices were also issued after inspection by the Board as it was found that the units were under operation without consent of the Pollution Control Board as required under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. As the units have violated the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which is an offence punishable under Section 44 and 45(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the notice was issued to show cause as to why penal action for offences punishable under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 should not be initiated followed by the impugned order issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for closure and disconnection of power supply.
13. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that these units have invested more than 25 lakhs by availing loans from financial institutions. Their manufacturing activities are crippled by the impugned order for want of „No Objection Certificate‟. The Learned 12 Counsel specifically pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Ground Water Development and Management Act, 2003 which was proposed to be introduced to have a regulation of the water extraction was never notified and ultimately it was repealed. Therefore, it is stated that the State Government does not have any powers to regulate the ground water extraction as the said question is sub-judiced before the Hon‟ble High Court and the same cannot be dealt with by this Tribunal.
14. The Learned Counsel also pointed out that the units will have to be maintained by running so that the membrane and other computer related machineries are kept in good condition and even without considering the same the 1st respondent had passed the impugned closure order. The point submitted by the Learned Counsel is that by completely prohibiting the package drinking water industries, the Government is only acting adverse to the interest of the general public and as such allowing the discharge of ground water which cannot be termed as effluent can be used for agricultural purpose. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court while passing interim order on 11.11.2020 had categorically stated that the borewells concerned may be sealed in such a manner that the water withdrawal from such borewells is not permitted. It was stated that water withdrawn from any of such units in the critical areas is not allowed to bring to the water purifying units to carry out the air purification operations. The necessary documents, namely, vouchers, invoices, etc., accompanying transportation vehicles for bringing such water should be produced for inspection of the concerned authorities in support of the proof that the water is being withdrawn from the safe area only and the units are having due NOCs in their favour in terms of G.O. 142 dated 23.07.2014.
15. The order further made it clear that any specific case against any unit of illegal drawl of water or illegal transportation of water withdrawn from the unit situated in the critical area without proper NOC under G.O. Ms. No. 142, the entire unit shall be immediately closed and their power supplies shall be disconnected forthwith subject to the result of the Writ Appeal pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras.
16. In all the appeals around 37 drinking water treatment plants were inspected by the officials of the 1st respondent on various dates and during inspection, it was found that the units which had been sealed earlier, were de-sealed and found under operation without necessary 13 permission/NOC to draw ground water and without obtaining consent of the Board. Even for the show-cause notice issued by the Board, there was no reply or response from the appellants. The appellants also argued that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which provides for restrictions on new outlets and new discharges.
17. It is pertinent to note that none of the appellants had given any response or reply to the above said show-cause notice. According to the Section 25 no person is allowed to set up an industry or start a new operation or processor to any treatment of sewage without prior approval of the State Board. The State Board may grant him a notice of approval and only after that he is permitted to continue to start a new business. In all these Appeals, the operations have been commenced without prior approval of the Board. The Board has the powers to stop any person to enter into any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined to the standards laid down in the Act. Therefore, the said ground is also not available to the appellants.
18. In view of such circumstances, there is no merit in the above appeals and they deserve to be dismissed.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal Nos.59 to 72 of 2022(SZ) 20th December, 2022 (AM) 14 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal Nos. 59 to 72 of 2022(SZ) M/s. Sri Balamurugan Trades, Vellore District and Ors.
Vs. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai and Ors.
Appeal Nos. 59 to 72 of 2022(SZ) 20th December, 2022. (AM) 15