National Green Tribunal
Advent Envirocare Technology Private ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2023
Item No.03
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL
(By Virtual Mode)
Original Application No.33/2023(CZ)
(Original Application No.448/2022(PB))
Advent Envirocare Technology Pvt. Ltd. Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 04.08.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arjun Sheth Advocate with Ms. Henna
George Advocate
ORDER
1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') has been filed under Sections 14, 15 and 18 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act, 2010') by M/s Advent Envirocare Technology Pvt. Ltd., a Service Provider who claims to have installed a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred as to 'CETP') of 12.3 MLD at Sanganer Industrial Cluster in Jaipur, State of Rajasthan, pursuant to a contract/agreement dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure A-14 at page 189 to the paper book) executed between applicant and Sanganer Enviro Project Development (hereinafter referred to as 'SEPD'), a Special Purpose Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'SPV') promoted by Sanganer Kapda Rangai Chhapai Association (hereinafter referred to as 'SKRCA') i.e., respondent 5.
2. Facts disclosed in this OA show that there is some dispute between respondents 4 and 5 as well as applicant on account whereof CETP established by applicant is not functioning and there is some payment 1 dispute also in respect whereto, the matter has gone in litigation. An Award dated 03.09.2021 has also been passed by Micro Small Enterprise Facilitation Council. However, dispute between applicant and respondents 4&5 is still continuing.
3. In fact, applicant, the Service Provider has come to this Tribunal for advancement of his commercial interest with regard to the said CETP which it has established but on account of some dispute with the body which has granted contract to applicant for establishing and running CETP, CETP is not functioning. Though applicant has tried to cloathe this OA as if he is raising a substantial question relating to environment for protection of environment which is being damaged by textile and other industries established at Sanganer and causing pollution which is already subject matter of adjudication before this Tribunal in OA 558/2020 and 568/2022 but as we have noticed from the pleadings, the OA is for personal grievance redressal.
4. What we have observed above is evident from facts stated in OA and also prayer made in this OA.
5. The brief facts are that the issue of damage to environment by running various industries in non-conforming areas at Sanganer and discharging toxic waste into canal and open land was raised before High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2075 of 1994, Vijay Singh Punia vs. Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution and Ors (Annexure-A7 at page 105 of paper book). It was a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred as to 'PIL'). A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court passed a detailed order on 07.03.2023 (annexure A-7 at page 105), disposing of writ petition finally. The facts stated in the judgment are that growth of unauthorized 2 factories in non-conforming area could not be checked by Statutory Regulators responsible for protection of environment which resulted in discharge of toxic waste and effluents into canal and lake. These unauthorized industries and factories were set up in large number at Sanganer in Villages Gujron-Ki-Talai, Hazyawala, Kesyawala and Muhana. These factories and industries were set up along the canal from Sanganer Anicut to Newata Dam. Many of the factories/industries were set up in agriculture land without permission. The industries were carrying on business of dyeing and printing of clothes. RSPCB brought this fact before High Court that since industries are small scale or middle scale, for discharge and treatment industrial effluent, CETP should be established at the area where industries are situated in cluster. High Court considered the matter in detail and also ways in which environmental damage can be contained. It relied on provisions of Article 21, 48-A and 51-A(g), observing that right to clean air and environment is a Fundamental Right. There is directive principles of the state policy providing that States shall endeavor to protect and improve environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. There is a statutory duty cast upon the citizen to protect and improve natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife to have compassion for living creatures. High Court found that looking to the pitiable condition caused, due to huge discharge of effluent in canals and land, closure of industries ought to have been directed but in order to protect industrial development in the State and also interest of large number of persons employed and other relevant factors, let an opportunity be given to industries to comply with environmental laws and hence issued certain directions, particularly, with regard to shifting of industries to an industrial area to be developed by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred 3 as 'RIICO'). High Court also directed that industries at present location shall stop functioning by 31.03.2004. Operative part of judgment, contained in para 47 to 50, is reproduced as under:
"47. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we can straightway, direct closure of the industry, but, we would like to give a chance to the industry, the State and its concerned instrumentalities, to prevent the degradation of environment and ecology. The industry, the State and its agencies, including RIICO, must set up CETPs, so that effluents are not discharged into the canals, streams and on the ground. Since the printing and dyeing industry is scattered, it may not be feasible for one CETP, to caterto the requirement, therefore, it may be necessary to set up two or three, or more CETPs at various places, depending upon the location of the industry. As the industry has been polluting the water-channels, by discharging the effluents, they must pay pollution-fine, so that, the money, collected thus, is pooled for the purposes of setting up of the CETPs.
48. Keeping in view, the aforesaid considerations, we direct as follows:-
(1) RIICO shall develop an industrial area for dyeing and printing industry, within a period of eight months. Location of the area shall be identified and plans finalized within two months.
(2) The owners and proprietors of the present industrial outfits shall be given plots in the industrial area, for which, they shall pay the price, as determined by RIICO, at no-profit no-loss basis.
(3) Each of the printing and/or dyeing units shall pay the pollution fine, as per below:
Turnover of Unit for amount of the period from fine 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 Upto i. Rs.
E 1,00,000/- :Rs.20,000/-
a
Between 1,00,000 and 3,00,000 :Rs.40,000/-
c
Between 3,00,000 and 10,00,000 :Rs.1,00,000/-
h
Between 10,00,000 and :Rs.5,00,000/-
50,00,000
o
Between 50,00,000 and Rs. 1 :Rs.10,00,000/-
fcrore and more
(4) Each of the units, within one month, shall deposit minimum pollution-fine of Rs.20,000/- with RIICO. The balance amount, depending upon the turnover, shall be paid to RIICO, within two months. In case, pollution fine is not paid within time, the defaulting unit shall be sealed by the respondents.
49. Allotment of alternative sites shall be made only in case the pollution-fine is paid by the unit-holders. With the pollution-fine collected by RIICO and with its own resources and resources of the 4 State, the CETPs shall be set up.
50. The industry, at the present location, shall stop functioning by 31.3.2004."
6. The matter was taken to Supreme Court by SKRCA (respondent 5) in Civil Appeal No.207 of 2005, Sanganer Kapda Rangai and Chhapai Association vs. Vijay Singh Punia and Ors., and other connected Appeals. Civil Appeals were disposed of by order dated 30.04.2009 and order of Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
"An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan respondent no.5 herein, referring to a report of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The said affidavit be taken on record.
The views of the Board, as per the said affidavit, are indicated in its letter dated 31.03.2009 addressed to Senior Additional Director (Officer-in-Charge), Office of the Commissioner of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Association stated that the members of the Association are agreeable to act in terms of the recommendations of the Board. It needs to be noted that State had accepted the views and recommendations of the Board and follow up action has to be taken by the concerned industries.
We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition(s) with the direction that in case the requisite norms fixed by the Board are fulfilled by any industry, whose case is being espoused by the appellant Association, necessary permission to continue shall be granted to it, if otherwise there is no violation of any norms or any statutory prescription. The Board and the State shall make joint enquiries in future to see that the requisite norms are being followed and, in case, there is any deviation or infraction therefrom, it shall be open to the Board or the State, as the case may be, to take action as available in law.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
7. It appears that orders of Supreme as also Rajasthan High Court with regard to establishment of CETP, were not executed or implemented. In the meantime, some more writ petitions were filed in Rajasthan High Court in 2007, 2008 and onwards upto 2014. All these writ petitions were considered on various dates i.e., 26.03.2015 (Annexure A-9 at page 5
122), 27.04.2015 (Annexure A-10 at page 129), 19.05.2015 (Annexure A- 11 at page 138), 10.08.2015 (Annexure A-13 at page 176) and various directions were issued which included directions for establishment of Effluent Treatment Plant of Secondary level to Zero Liquid Discharge, active steps for regulation and production of environment to be taken by RSPCB etc.
8. In order to construct CETP where cluster of industries existed at Sanganer, respondent 5 prompted SPV i.e., SEPD, duly registered under Companies Act. The responsibility for establishment of CETP and its operation was placed on SEPD i.e., respondent 4. In furtherance of its discharge of duties, SEPD entered into an agreement on 03.09.2016 (Annexure A-14 at page 189) with applicant, whereunder applicant was required to construct and establish a CETP of the capacity of 12.3 MLD average flow and 36.9 MLD peak flow and to operate the same. Applicant claims that in furtherance of the contract/agreement dated 03.09.2016 executed between applicant and respondent no.4, CETP was established and commissioned in December 2018. Consent to Operate was also granted by RSPCB to said CETP vide letter dated 23.02.2019, (Annexure A-17 at page 212).
9. It is said that about 300 industries were connected to CETP but a large number of industries which were located far away, could not connected for various reasons, including want of construction of pipelines and connivance system for carrying sewage to CETP. On account of this reason, it appears that some financial assistance which used to be provided by Government of India was denied. It is said that second installment of grant in aid was denied by Government of India vide letter dated 18.04.2019 (Annexure A-19 at page 228). Ultimately, applicant could not get its payment and CETP stopped functioning. Applicant 6 thereafter, has given further details of various steps including litigation taken by it for claiming its payment. It initiated various proceedings before Gujarat High Court as also MSME Facilitation Counsel under the provisions of Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, wherein award was given on 03.09.2021 in favour of applicant, directing for payment of Rs.52.50 Crores to applicant. The said payment, it is said, has not been made by respondent 4 till date to applicant.
10. Therefore, applicant has come to this Tribunal, seeking a direction that in the garb of execution of High Court's various orders passed on various dates i.e., 07.03.2003 (Annexure A-7 at page 105), 26.03.2015, (Annexure A-9 at page 122), 27.04.2015 (Annexure-A10 at page 129), 19.05.2015 (Annexure-A11 at page 138), 10.08.2015 (Annexure A-13 at page 176) and 21.02.2022 (Annexure A-39 at page 391), this Tribunal should direct respondents to implement their order by completing the work under tender contract dated 22.05.2015 and contract dated 03.09.2016 and they should also be directed to provide financial recourse and support to applicant for running CETP.
11. The above facts make it very clear and demonstrate that present OA has been filed by applicant not to raise a substantial question relating to environment, arising due to implementation of Scheduled enactments under NGT Act, 2010, which is the condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 14 and also not for relief as provided in Section 15 but for its own commercial interest with regard to running of CETP which it claims to have established under the agreement dated 03.09.2016 with respondent 4 and also to ensure its payment.
12. Such application is thoroughly misconceived and is not within the ambit of Sections 14, 15 and 18 of NGT Act, 2010.
7
13. OA is accordingly dismissed.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM August 04, 2023 Original Application No.33/2023(CZ) MK 8