National Green Tribunal
Kandasamy S/O Murugappagounder vs The State Of Tamilnadurep. By Its ... on 28 October, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.3:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No.05 of 2016 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kandasamy
S/o. Murugappagounder
Murugampalayam
Paranchervali Village
Kangayam Taluk,
Tirupur District. ...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Environment and Forest
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2) The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
76, Mount Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3) The District Environmental Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, (Tirupur North)
Second Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex,
Kumaran Road, Tirupur - 641 601.
4) The District Collector,
Tirupur District.
5) The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District.
6) The Tahsildar,
Kangayam Taluk,
Kangayam - 638 701.
Tiruppur District.
7) The President,
Paranchervazhi Panchayat,
Kangayam Union,
Tiruppur District.
[1]
8) M/s. Amman Coirs,
Rep. by its Proprietor
D. Moorthy,
S/o. Deivasigamanigounder
D.No. 7/138, Pallakkattupudhur,
Paranchervazhi Post,
Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
9) M/s. Sri. Amman Coirs
Rep. by its Proprietor
S. Selvaraj, S/o. Subramani
S.F. No.1201, Pallakkattupudhur,
Paranchervazhi and Post,
Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
10) Sri Ganapathi Coirs
Rep. by its Proprietor S. Kamaljothi,
S/o. P. Shanmugam
S.F. No.1116/A,B - Pallakattupudur,
Paranchervazhi Post,
Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
11) R.P.G. Coir,
Rep. by Prop. R.Ramesh,
S/o. Ramasamy,
R.S. No.1127, Thundukkadu,
Poraiyagoundan Valasu,
Paranchervazhi Post,
Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
12) M/s. C.S. Coirs
Rep. by its Proprietor,
P. Shanmugam,
S/o. Palanisamy,
D.No. 1200 Pallakattupudur
Paranchervazhi Post,
Kangayam Taluk, Tirupur District.
...Respondent(s)
Date of Judgment: 28th October, 2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
[2]
For Applicant(s): Sri. R. Prabakar.
For Respondent(s): Sri. S.N. Parthasarathy through
M/s. Girija for R1, R4, R5, R6.
Sri. C. Kasirajan through
M/s. Meena for R2, R3.
Sri. Sai Sathya Jith for R8 to R12.
JUDGMENT
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the pollution that is alleged to have been caused on account of the operation of Coir industries run by the respondents 8 to 12 in Pallakattuputhur, Kangayam Taluk and Tiruppur District.
2. It is alleged in the application that the applicant is a resident of Manthoppu, Murugampalayam, Paranchervali Village and also a co-owner of the agricultural lands having an extent of 3 Acres in that village. He filed this application in a representative capacity representing the agriculturists in that area as all the agriculturists were being affected on account of the alleged pollution that was being caused on account of operation of the Coconut Coir manufacturing industries, some of whom had been arrayed as respondents 8 to 12 in this case.
3. According the applicant, the process of manufacture of various coir products using coconut husk causes air, soil and water pollution. They have obtained a certificate on 16.06.2014 from the Coir Board as if their Coir Industry is a Non-Polluting industry and 100% natural and eco-
friendly product.
4. According to the applicant, Coir Board is not the authority to give such certificate. Due to processing of coconut husk, coir fibber and dust particles emanates from these factories and spreads through the air and [3] affect the air quality. They are also burning the waste materials like coconut husk which also resulted in air pollution. They did not obtain consent or permission from the concerned departments earlier and thereafter, they have obtained certain permissions.
5. According to the applicant, the unit should not be allowed to operate in an agricultural zone adjoining to the water bodies as it is likely to cause air or water pollution and soil degradation. Certain Civil Suits were also pending filed by these industries restraining others from interfering with their business activities and the temporary injunction applications were filed where were later dismissed. The official respondents are not taking any action against these industries. Though, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition as W.P. No.1265 of 2015 to take action under Section 133 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 21.01.2015, directed the Tahsildar, Kangayam to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Notices were issued and subsequently, Tahsildar issued closure orders but inspite of that they were operating the unit.
6. It is also alleged by the applicant that the TDS level in the area has increased after the establishment of these industries.
7. That prompted the applicant to file this application seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Direct the respondents 1 to 7 to restrain the respondents 8 to 12 from carrying on the hazardous coir industrial activities at Murugampalayam, Poraiyagounden Valasu, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangayam Taluk, Tirupur District.
(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 6 to restitute the water resources of the affected village and direct the same to the respondents 8 to 12 by applying polluter pays principle.
(iii) Revoke the consent to operated granted by the proceedings dated 19.08.2015 by the 3rd respondent to the respondents 8 to 12.[4]
(iv) Pass such other just and necessary orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice."
8. The 1st respondent filed their counter contending as follows:-
"2. It is respectfully submitted that the Kangeyam Taluk in Tiruppur District is a coconut based industrial area. There are more than 1000 Nos. of coconut oil industries and coconut copra fields (Kalam). Hence, a huge amount of coconut husk is generated in Kangeyam Taluk and this husk being used as a raw material for the coir based industries. The coir manufacturing industries falls under green category. The following five coir manufacturing industries are located in Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. All the five industries are surrounded by dry and wet agricultural lands.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent units of M/s. Amman Coirs, S.F. No.1203/B4, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s. Sri Amman Coirs, S.F. No.1201, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s. Sri Ganapathy Coirs, S.F. No.116, A & B, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s. R.P.G. Coris, S.F. No.1127, Poriyagoundan Valasu Village and M/s. C.S. Coris, S.F. No.1200, Pallakattupudhur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District are existing units.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the manufacturing process involved in the above said units are beating, screening and solar drying operations. The raw materials coconut husks are passed through beater machine and the product obtained is dumped on the open land where the raw water is sprayed so as to obtain fibre for further processing. The fibres obtained are passed through disintegrator to obtain coir fibre and coir pith. The final fibre obtained is processed through machinery to obtain coir yarn. The manufacturing process involved in the above said units are drying of coir pith and making coir pith block.
5. It is respectfully submitted that, the complaints from nearby residents against these respondent units regarding the ground water contamination has been received through CM cell, RTI and Grievance Day Petitions. Based on the complaints, the respondent units were inspected by the TNPCB officials on 08.07.2014 and it was noticed that the units were in operation without obtaining consent of the Board under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended in 1988 and under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as amended as 1987. Hence, shows cause notices were issued vide Board‟s Proceedings dated 10.07.2014 to these units under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as amended in 1987.
6. It is further submitted that the water samples have been collected on 08.07.2014 at the time of inspection form the bore wells, common bore well, open wells where the complainant raised regarding the ground water contamination in the presence of the complainant and the nearby residents and sent for analysis to District Environmental Laboratory (DEL), Tiruppur. The consolidated Report of Analysis (ROA) of the water samples collected reveals that the parameters are more than the drinking water standards.[5]
7. It is respectfully submitted that the respondents unit in their letter dated 13.08.2014 replied that Regional Manager of the Coir Board has issued to them a certificate that their coir industry area a non polluting industry. The Coir Board (Ministry of MS & ME, Govt. of India) vide their letter dated 14.08.2014 received by the DEE, TNPCB, Tirupur on 18.08.2014 had requested the Board not to take any action against the unit holder.
8. It is respectfully submitted that, subsequently, Original Suits were filed by the respondents Thiru. D. Moorthy, Proprietor, M/s. Amman Coirs, Thiru. S. Selvaraj, Proprietor, M/s. Sri Amman Coirs, Thiru. S. Kamaljothi, Proprietor, M/s. Sri. Ganapthy Coirs, Thiru. R. Ramesh, Proprietor, M/s. R.P.G. Coirs & Thiru. P. Shanmugam, Proprietor, M/s. C.S Coirs before the Sub Ordinate Court, Dharapuram with the prayer of "Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their subordinates, men, agents, assignees etc from in any way and in any manner either preventing me in operating the coir factory in the suit properties or causing any disturbance to me in running the coir factory in the suit properties till the disposal of the suit, grant an order of ad-interim injunction to the said effect pending disposal of this application and pass such other suitable and favourable orders and thus render justice."
The five units have provided wind net arresters in the process machinery and also around the periphery of the unit to arrest air pollution. The water used for wetting the coconut husk, after curing, is generated as trade effluent and collected in the collection tank which is again reused for wetting of coconut husk and no water is disposed on land. Hence, there is no chance of causing water pollution in the nearby area.
All the five units gave an under taking in stamp paper that they have withdrawn the O.S. filed by them and applied for consent through online to the TNPC Board on 10.04.2015.
Based on their applications, the five respondent coir units were inspected by the Board officials and noticed the following. i. The units have provided APC measures like wind net arrester around the processing machinery to arrest the dust emission from the manufacturing process.
ii. The three units have provided collection tank to collect the water which is used for wetting the coconut husk. The excess water (trade effluent) collected is reused in the unit for wetting of coconut husk. No water is discharged outside on land.
iii. The other two units are manufacturing only coir pith blocks using hydraulic compressor machine and no trade effluent is generated from these units.
In view of the above, consent to operate was issued to the units on 19.08.2015. The present status of the units are as detailed below.
M/s. Amman Coirs The 8th respondent unit of M/s. Amman Coirs, S.F. No.1203/B2 & 1204/7,9,12 Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued Consent to Operate vide Board‟s Proc. Dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Pith Bricks.
M/s. Sri. Amman Coirs The 9th respondent unit of M/s. Amman Coirs, S.F. No.1201, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued [6] Consent to Operate vide Board‟s Proc. Dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Fibre.
M/s. Sri Ganapathy Coirs The 10th unit of M/s. Sri Ganapathy Coirs, S.F. No.1116/A, B, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued Consent to Operate vide Board‟s dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Fibre.
M/s. R.P.G. Coirs The 11th respondent unit of M/s. R.P.G. Coirs, S.F. No.1127, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued Consent to Operate vide Board‟s Proc. Dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Pith Block.
M/s. C.S. Coirs The 12th respondent unit of M/s. C.S. Coir, S.F. No.1200, Paranchervazhi, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued Consent to Operate vide Board‟s Proc. Dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Fibre.
Meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, has ordered the five units to stop their activities as their original suits filed by the units are pending with the Hon‟ble Sub Ordinate Judge Court, Dharapuram vide O.S. No.422 to 426 of 2014 and also for not obtaining consent to operate from Pollution Control Board on 23.12.2015. But, consent to operate was issued to these units on 19.08.2015.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) may be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
9. The respondents 2 & 3 filed their counter statement contending as follows:-
"REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2 ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS- TAMLNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD I, Dr. S. Selvan, son of P.Swaminathan, Hindu, aged about 52 years having my office at No.76, Mount salai, Guindy,Chennai-60003, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows
1. I am the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu pollution control board Chennai and I am filing this reply Affidavit on behalf of the 2 nd and 3rd respondents and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case as per records.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Kangeyam Taluk in Tiruppur District is a coconut based industrial area. There are more than 1000 no.s of coconut oil industries and coconut copra fields (kalam). Hence a huge amount of coconut husk is generated Kangeyam Taluk, and this husk is generated in Kangeyam Taluk and this husk being used as a raw material for the coir based industries. The coir manufacturing industries falls under green category. The following five coir industries are surrounded by dry and wet agricultural lands.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent units of M/s. Amman Coirs, S.F.No. 1203/B4, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s Sri. Amman coirs, S.F No. [7] 1201, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s.sri Ganapathy Coirs, S.F No. 1116, A&B Pallakattupudhur village, M/s R.P.G Coirs S.FNo.1127, Poriyagoundan valasu Village and M/s. C.S Coirs S.F NO. 1200 Pallakattupudhur village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District are existing units.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the manufacturing process involved in the above said units are beating, screening, and solar drying operations. The raw material coconut husks are passed through beater machine and the product obtained is dumped on the open land where the raw water is sprayed son as to obtain fibre for further processing. The fibres obtained are passed through disintegrator to obtain coir fibre and coir pith. The final fibre obtained is processed through machinery to obtain coir yarn. The manufacturing process involved in the above said units are drying of coir pith and making coir pith block.
5. It is respectfully submitted that, the complaints from nearby by residents against these respondent units regarding the ground water contamination has been received through CM cell, RTI and Grievance Day petitions. Based on the complaints, the respondent units were inspected by the TNPCB officials on 08.07.2024 and it was noticed that the units were in operation without obtaining the consent of the Board under the Water (prevention & control of pollution) Act,1974, as amended in 1988 and under the Air(prevention &control of pollution)Act 1981 as amended in 1987. Hence, show cause notices were issued vide Board‟s proceedings dated 10.07.2014 to these units under the (prevention & control) of pollution Act 1974, as amended in1988, & under the Air (prevention &control of pollution Act 1981, as amended in 1987.
6. It is further submitted that the water samples have been collected on 08.07.2014 at the time of inspection from the bore wells common bore well, open wells where the complaint raised regarding the ground water contamination in the presence of the complainant and nearby residents and sent for analysis to District Environmental Analysis (ROA) of the water samples collected reveals that the parameters are more than the drinking water standards.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent units in their letter dated 13.08.2014 replied that Regional Manager of the coir Board has issued them a certificate that their industry are non polluting industry. The coir Board ( Ministry of MS & ME, Govt. of India ) vide their letter dated 14.08.2014 received by the DEE, TNPCB, Tirupur on 18.08.2014 requested the Board not to take any action against the unit holders
8. It is respectfully submitted that, subsequently, Original suits were filed by the respondents Thiru.D.Moorthy, proprietor, M/s. Amman Coirs, Thiru. S.Kamaljothy, proprietor, M/s. Sri Ganapathy Coirs, Thiru. R. Ramesh proprietor, M/s.RPG Coirs & Thiru. P. Shanmugam, proprietor, M/s. C.S Coirs before the Sub ordinate court, Dharapuram with the prayer of Honourable Court may kindly pleased to grant order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their subordinates, men, agents, assignees etc. From in any way and in any manner either preventing me in operating the coir factory in the suit properties or causing any disturbance to me in running the coir factory in the suit properties or causing any disturbance to me running the coir factory in the suit properties till the disposal date of the suit, grant an order of ad-interim injunction to the said effect pending [8] disposal of this application and pass such other suitable and favourable orders and thus render justice The five units have provided wind net arresters in the process machinery and also around the periphery of the unit to arrest air pollution. The water used for wetting the coconut husk and no water is disposed on land. Hence there is no chance of causing water pollution in the nearby area.
All the five units gave an under taking in stamp paper that they have withdrawn the O.S filed by them and applied for consent through online to the TNPCB on 10.04.2015.
Based on their applications, the five respondent coir units were inspected by the Board officials and noticed the following i. The units have provided APC measures like wind net arrester around the processing machinery to arrest the dust emission from the manufacturing process.
ii. The three units have provided collection tank to collect the water which is used for wetting the coconut husk. No water is discharged outside on land. iii. The other two units are manufacturing only coir pith blocks using hydraulic compressor machine and no trade effluent is generated from these units. In view of the above, consent to operate was issued to the units on 19.08.2015. The present status of the units are as detailed below.
M/s.Amman Coirs The 8th respondent unit of M/s Amman Coirs, S.F No.1203/B2 & 1204/7,9,12 Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District has been issued consent to operate vide Boar‟s proc. Dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture coir pith Bricks.
M/s. Sri Amman Coirs The 9th respondent unit of M/s. Sri Amman Coirs , S.F No. 1201 Paranchervazhi village, Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District has been issued consent to operate vide Board‟s proc. dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir fibre.
M/s Ganpathy Coirs The 10th unit of M/s Sri. Ganapathy Coirs, S.F No. 1116/A,B Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District has been issued consent to Operate vide Board‟s proc. Dated. 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Fibre.
M/s.RPG Coirs The 11th respondent unit of M/s. R.P.G Coirs, S.F No. 1127, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District has been issued consent to operate vide Board‟s proc. dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir Pith Block.
M/s.C.S Coirs The 12th respondent unit of M/s C.S Coir, S.F No.1200 Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk Tiruppur District has been issued consent to operate vide Board‟s proc. dated 19.08.2015 and renewed upto 31.12.2020 to manufacture Coir fibre.
Meanwhile the Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk has ordered the five units to stop their activities as their original suits filed by the units are pending with the Hon‟ble Sub ordinate judge Court, Dharapuram vide O.S [9] No. 422 to 426 of 2014 and also for not obtaining consent to operate from pollution control Board on 23.12.2015. But consent to operate was issued to these units on 19.08.2015.
Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) may be pleased to pass such further or other records as this Hon‟ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and render justice."
10.The 6th respondent filed their counter contending as follows:-
"2. The Applicant has filed the above application for a relief (a) directing the Respondents 1 to 7 to restrain the Respondents 8 to 12 from carrying on the hazardous Coir industrial activity at Murugampalayam, Poraiyagounden Valasu, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangayam Taluk, Tirupur District. (b) Directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to restitute the water resources of the affected Villages. (c) revoke the consent to operate granted dt. 19.08.2015 granted by the 3rd Respondent to the Respondents 8 to 12 and pass such other orders that deem fit.
3. It is stated that on 14.11.2014 the applicant herein had sent representation to the office of the RDO complaining that Respondent industries located near the Applicant land are causing pollution due to running of their Coir industries. Further due to the emanation of Coir particles from Sri. Amman Coirs, RPG Coirs, CS Coirs, Amman Coirs and Sri Ganapathy Coirs on the ground of environmental damage by the said industries. The Applicant herein had also environmental damage by the said industries the Applicant herein had also approached the High court of madras ordered on 21.01.15. that to summon the Applicant and the concerned parties and conduct enquiry and take appropriate action as per rules.
4. Further, as per order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras the summons were issued to the petitioner and other concerned parties and the Thasildar conducted the direct enquiry recording the depositions and the same is recorded as Na. Ka. Of the office dated 15.04.2015. The applicant in the above enquiry stated that the coconut fibre mills near his village results in ground water contamination and that the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and drainage Board passed an order on 04.07.2004 that the drinking water is not fit for drinking. The applicant in his representation had also added that in spite of the said order the proprietors are operating the above said industries. Hence, he pleaded to restrain the above said industries and pave way for cultivation and drinking water.
5. In this regard Mr. Selvaraj, the proprietor of the 8 th respondent unit attended the enquiry before the Tahsildar and in his deposition he informed that Mr. Kandhasamy, son of Marappa Gounder along with 9 others have filed a petition against him before the High Court of Madras out of jealousy and that the has also filed a suit regarding the running of his coir industry before the court of Dharapuram Sub Court in O.S. No.423/2014 and that matter is still pending and that after passing decree in the above said matter he would operate his industry accordingly. Further, he also added [10] that he also applied for consent to operate coir industry before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
6. Mr. Ramesh, the proprietor of 11th respondent unit had also attended the above said enquiry and in his deposition he informed that Mr. Kandhasamy, son of Marappa Gounder along with 9 others have filed a petition against him before the High Court of Madras out of jealousy and that the has also filed a suit regarding the running of my coir industry before the court of Dharapuram Sub Court in O.S. No.425/2014 and that matter is still pending and that after passing decree in the above said matter he would operate his industry accordingly and he also applied to operate coir industry before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
7. Mr. Shanmugam, the proprietor of 12 th respondent unit also attended the enquiry before the Tahsildar and in his deposition he informed that Mr. Kandhasamy, son of Marappa Gounder along with 9 others have filed a petition against myself before the High Court of Madras and that he have also filed a suit regarding the running of my coir industry before the court of Dharapuram Sub Court in O.S. No.426/2014 and that matter is still pending and that after passing decree in the above said matter he would operate his industry accordingly and he also applied to operate coir industry before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
8. Mr. Murthy, the proprietor 9th respondent industry attended the enquiry before the Tahshildar and in his deposition he informed that Mr. Kandhasamy, son of Marappa Gounder along with 9 others have filed a petition against him before the High Court of Madras and that the has also filed a suit regarding the running of my coir industry before the court of Dharapuram Sub Court in O.S. No.422/2014 and that matter is still pending and that after passing decree in the above said matter he would operate his industry accordingly and he also applied to operate coir industry before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
9. Mr. Kamal Jothi, the proprietor of 10th respondent coir industry attended the enquiry before the Tahshildar and in his deposition he informed that the applicant herein along with 9 others have filed a petition against him before the High Court of Madras and that he has also filed a suit regarding the running of my coir industry before the court of Dharapuram Sub Court in O.S. No.424/2014 and that matter is still pending and that after passing decree in the above said matter he would operate his industry accordingly and he also applied to operate coir industry before the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
10. It is submitted that after considering the documents and depositions from both sides with care and taking into account of the consequences of permitting the industries to run without valid licence from the TNPCB these industries were ordered to stop their operations as per the orders dated 23.12.2015. In furtherance to the same there was also a complaint from the Applicant on 01.01.2016 on the respondent units running.
11. It is submitted that upon the order dated 23.12.2015 the respondents 8 to 12 herein made appeal to the office of RDO at Dharapuram on 08.01.2016 and an enquiry was conducted on 01.07.2016 with the owners of the Coir Industry, general public and VAO. During the said enquiry the applicant and few villagers stated that the said industries cause pollution and sought for closure of the same. But the VAO informed in the said enquiry [11] that the general public has not been affected and the units submitted that they have obtained permissions from (a) Pollution Control Board, (b) Health Department (c) Coir Board (d) Fire Department and that on jealousy there are several complaints. Further in the Civil cases instituted in O.S. No.72/2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam, with a view to stay the operation of the above firm, has been stayed by the Hon‟ble Court by an order dated 15.04.2016 and thereby they have submitted a copy of the Judgment for the same. Further the order of the Thasildhar dated 23.12.2015 which issued stop work on the basis of non obtained of Consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was cancelled by proceedings dated 21.07.2016 with a direction to the aggrieved parties to approach the TNPCB Appellate Authority.
Thus it is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal may be pleased to pass appropriate orders and deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as stated above and render justice."
11.The 7th respondent filed their counter contending as follows:-
"3. It is stated that the industries of the Respondents 8 to 12 are in existence from the year 2010&2012 respectively. Upon working of the said units the applicant made several oral complaints to this respondent. Further on 14.11.2014 the villagers had sent representation to the Chief Minister cell complaining that Respondent industries located in the Village are causing pollution.
4. Further it was also alleged that due to the emanation of Coir particle from Sri. Amman Coirs, RPG Coirs, Amman Coirs and Ganapathy Coirs, on the ground of environmental damage by the said industries the applicant herein had also approached High court of Madras in W.P. No. 1265/2015 to take necessary action on his representation. In the above said matter the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras ordered 21.01.2015 that to summon the applicant and the concerned parties and conduct enquiry and take appropriate action as per rules.
5. Further As per the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras an enquiry had been conducted by the Thasildhar and the same had been recorded as Na. Ka of the office dated 15.04.2015.After considering the documents and depositions from both the sides Thasildhar had ordered top stop operation of the said units as per orders dated 23.12.2015. In furtherance to the same on 23.12.2015 the units had made appeal to the office of RDO on 08.01.2016. Upon enquiry with the owners of the Coir industry, general public and VAO on 21.07.2016 the RDO had cancelled the said stop work order as the units had obtained all the required permissions. It is humbly submitted that the land and water alleged to have been polluted has been really polluted by Dying units situated in Tiruppur. Therefore the alleged allegation against the respondents 8 to 12 Coir industries that it is causing pollution is untrue. Moreover the people around the locality are jealous on the respondents 8 to 12 Coirs industries because they earn money than agriculture and they provide employment to many persons in the locality, so that there arise scarcity of workers for other purposes.[12]
Thus it is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal may be pleased to pass appropriate orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as stated above and render justice."
12.The respondents 8 to 12 filed common reply statement contending as follows:-
"1. The allegation made against the above Respondents in the application is common. Further the cases of the Respondents herein are one and the same and the further Respondents together rely upon common documents to disprove the case of the Applicant. Thus it is respectfully submitted that Respondents are filing the present reply as common reply for brevity and convenience and the same is prayed to be read as a reply of all the Respondents herein individually.
2. At the outset the respondents deny each and every allegation of the above application as false and unsustainable except those that are admitted herein. The above application has been filed with ulterior motive and deserves no appreciation of this Hon‟ble Tribunal. Further the application is also non-maintainable for the following two preliminary objections.
Application is beyond period of limitation
3. In the instant case the Respondent industries are coir manufactures where coconut husk is the only raw material. The same is practiced as a cottage industry providing employment to many villagers. There are no chemicals used in such industries and no hazardous products are produced by the industry as certified and evident from the proceedings of the research institute in (COMMON ANNEXURE-I)
4. Further the Respondents are certified to be NON-POLLLUTING industry and 100% NATURAL and ECOFRIENDLY product as found in (COMMON ANNEXURES 2-6). The Respondents are also registered with the Coir board of the Govt.of India as found in (COMMON ANNEXURES-7-10). The above application is filed under section 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 on the basis of alleged pollution caused by Respondent industries. Assuming while denying the averments in the application it is stated that the Applicant himself relies upon a test certificate is disputed by the Respondents as wrong., misleading and in no connection to these units, the date of the certificate 07.07.2014 ought to be calculated as the first date for the period of limitation of the above application since the Applicant had knowledge of the allegations contained in the application on the said date itself.
5. That apart the reliance placed by the Applicant in various documents annexed to the application is non maintainable as per section 14(3) of the NGT Act, 2010. The applicant in column V of the application at page no.15 had explained the limitation as well within time the "cause of action continues till date". The same erroneous as per section 14 of the NGT Act,2010 as the cause of action is to be calculated from the date it "first arose." Thus the application is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
APPLICATION IS BARRED BY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY [13]
6. It is submitted that the Applicant had sought for relief in the above application including those in Column VII PRAYER (i) Direct the Respondents 1 to 7 to restrain the Respondents 8 to 12 from carrying on the hazardous coir industrial activities. (iv) revoke the consent to operate granted by the proceedings dated 19.08.2015 by the 3 rd Respondent to the Respondent 8 to 12.
7. It is submitted that the Respondent industries are operating as per law with proper permission from the concerned authorities. The Respondents had also been granted consent by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the same has also been extended and as on date the industries are all operating with valid consent of the board as found in (COMMON ANNEXURES 11-15)
8. It is submitted that the said order granting consent is an order under the Water Act and Air Act and as such in the nature of an appealable order as per section.28 of Water Act and section 31 of the Air Act. Thus it is submitted that the present application for the relief stated above is non- maintainable as per law before this Hon‟ble Tribunal and thus liable to be dismissed in limine.
FACT OF THE CASE
9. It is submitted that without prejudice to the above stated preliminary objections to the application the Respondents submit the following before this Hon‟ble Tribunal to appreciate the case of the Respondents and further prove the lack of merits in the above application
10. The Respondents are carrying on the industry in the nature of Coir manufacturing industry. The same is a non-polluting industry and causes no grievance to any person including the Applicant herein. The process of the industry does not require any chemical or hazardous substances which are dangerous in nature to be used at any stage of the processing and resultantly there could be no cause for concern relating to environment from the operations of the industry. Further due to the said reason there could be no dangerous discharge or effluent particles released from the Respondent industries.
11. The Respondent industries are also mandated to follow and abide by precautions laid down in the consent granted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as found in (COMMON ANNEXURES 16_20). In fact the appraisal of each of the Respondents with respect to point of discharge and nature cum quantity of discharge in relation to water and air pollution control standards in the said consents would clearly show the respondent industries have negligible if not zero impact on the environment during operation phase.
12. In furtherance the Respondent units have also been registered in the category of Micro industries by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu as found in (COMMON ANNEXURES 21-25). The Respondent units have also registered with commercial taxes department as per (COMMON ANNEXURES 31-35)
13. Thus it is submitted that the Respondents are operating the units as per law and after obtaining the various permissions from several authorities. The present Applicant has been motivating several persons for interfering with peaceful functioning of the Respondent units for erroneous reasons. Further there is no iota of proof or truth in the claims of the Applicant in the present application which is apprehended to be filed only [14] with an intention to harass the Respondents and as such deserves no merit from this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
PARA WISE REPLY
14. With respect to Para (1), the averments are denied. The Respondents are law abiding units and are operating only upon grant of various permission as stated above. There is no iota of proof or truth in stating that the Respondents are polluting the environment and as such averments are denied as false.
15. With respect to Para (2) the averments are denied. There has been no other complaint received from any person and the applicant being personally motivated could not claim to be filing in the interest if other persons. The Applicant has not submitted any proof to substantiate the claim of cultivating his lands or any damage to the same. The Applicant even though had stated that the depletion of ground water is due to absence of monsoon for the past 10 years has without any nexus or proof alleged that the Respondent industry had caused the same which is only imaginary and as such denied as false.
16. With respect to Para (3), the averments are denied. The applicant as certified as cottage industries as referred above. Further the inspections and findings of the Pollution Control Board in the consent orders with respect to effluent and discharge would early prove that the Respondent industries are operating on a tiny scale. The allegations are without any basis or proof and thus denied as false.
17. With respect to Para (4), the averments are denied. The Applicant had not submitted any proof to show the damage to crops as result of chemical outlet from the Respondent industry. In fact the Respondent industry is certified to be non- polluting and eco friendly industry. Further, the process of the industry does not involve in any of the discharges as described and as such the averments are denied as false.
18. With respect to Para (5), the averments are denied. The Coir Board is the appropriate authority to certify and monitor the operations of the Respondents and is a functionary of the Central Government with research centres. The said averments are as such denied.
19. With respect to Para (6), the averments are denied. The allegations are bald, without any specifics or proof. The Respondent industry in nature of operation could not pollute the environment and has also been following guidelines issued by the authorities granting consents.
20. With respect to Para (7), the averments are denied. The allegations are without any specifics or proof much less relatable to the Respondent industries. The Respondent industry in nature of operations could not pollute the environment and has also been following guidelines issued by the authorities who while granting consents do so after verifications that the units are not causing pollution to the environment.
21. With respect to Para (8), the averments are denied as imaginary, bald without specifies or proof particularly relatable to these Respondents.
22. With respect to Para (9), the averments are denied. It is stated that the Respondent industry had obtained various permissions before commencing operations. As the Coir Board had certified the industries to be 100% eco friendly and none polluting, there arose no necessity to seek permission from the pollution control Board. It is relevant to state that all [15] other permissions were also obtained by the Respondent industries subsequently based on environmental certificate given by the Coir Board. However when the industries had been instructed to obtain the consents from the pollution control Board. It is relevant to state that all other permissions wee also obtained by the Respondent industries subsequently based on the environmental certificate given by the Coir Board. However, when the industries had been instructed to obtain the consent from the pollution control Board. The same been immediately applied for and obtained out of abundant precaution. The same is valid as per the procedure laid down in law in Section 25 to 27 of Water Act. The averment with respect to pre-dating is denied as contrary to records and self styled. The Respondent industries had been granted permission only after satisfying the various criteria and proof of operating without causing damage to the environment and the allegations are wrong and unsustainable.
23. With respect to Para (10) the averments are there has been no illegality or pollution caused by the Respondents and as such no necessity arose for the authorities to take action.
24. With respect to Para (11), the averments are unsustainable and without personal knowledge. The Applicant being not a party to the suit ought not to have commented about the intentions of the suit. The Respondents were merited with an interim order from the Hon‟ble Court initially. The Applicant ought not to have declared the suit as non-maintainable and the said averment is unnecessary and inappropriate when the suit is pending consideration of the Hon‟ble Court. The Respondents had filed the suit only to protect their interests and safeguard the right to profession.
25. With respect to Para (12), the averments are unsustainable. The obtainment signatures of village public by an applicant for the purpose of complaining against the Respondent units are disputed as true to the extent that each person had been appraised of the functioning of the unit. In fact the Applicant had been with ill-motive attempting several methods to disturb functioning of the units. The collection of water samples and analysis of the same are disputed and in any event in the absence of the unit owners. Further the analysis itself shows the point of collection as a bore well and not in the unit campus and as such liable to be neglected.
26. With respect to Para (13) and (14) the averments are denied as same in the above paragraph.
27. With respect to Para (15) and (16), the averments are denied. The Applicant had been motivating several persons against the unit for ulterior motive. Further as per the records of the Hon‟ble High Court, the enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar. The closure order was issued by him solely on the reason that the unit had not been obtained consent at the relevant point of time. In fact the said order was also reversed by the proceedings in (COMMON ANNEXURE-36). It is pertinent to point out even the enquiries conducted by the authorities would clearly show that there was never any pollution caused by the Respondent Units.
28. With respects to the Grounds raised in the application the same are unsustainable as per the above explanations and specific denials by the Respondents. The judgments referred to are not applicable to the present case as the Respondent units have never caused any pollution to the environment.[16]
Thus it is respectfully submitted that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the above appeal as devoid of any merit and justice."
13.The applicant filed their rejoinder denying the allegations in the counter statement filed and reiterating the allegations made in the application regarding the pollution caused.
14.When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Sri. R. Prabakar represented the applicant. Sri. S.N. Parthasarathi through M/s.
Girija represented respondents 1, 4 to 6, Sri. C. Kasirajan through M/s.
Meena represented respondents 2 & 3 and Sri. Sai Sathya Jith represented respondents 8 to 12.
15.As per order dated 07.01.2020, this Tribunal had considered the reply statements submitted by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and noted that though, the industries were 'White Category' which do not require Consent to Operate, however, they have applied and obtained Consent to Operate. They also mentioned in the statement that they are not discharging the untreated effluent into the soil. However, the water quality that has been tested in the locality shows that the TDS Level was high but these industries were not responsible for the same.
16.Heard the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the respondents.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the regular monitoring is required and the present status filed is only temporary in nature.
18.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the industries submitted that the report of the committee will go to show that they are not polluting industries and the operation of their industries are not responsible for increase in TDS level in that area. However, they are ready to comply [17] with all the recommendations and co-operate with the regulating authorities to mitigate the situation of causing any possible pollution from their side.
19.Points that arises for consideration are:-
Whether the applicant is entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed in the application?
What is the nature of direction that can be given while disposing the application?
Points (i) & (ii):
20.The grievance in this application is regarding the pollution that is said to have been caused on account of operation of the Coir Industries run by the respondents 8 to 12.
21.As per order dated 07.01.2020, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Tribunal felt to conduct a detailed water quality test near the industrial area where the disputed industries are functioning and also within a radius of 20 Kms where the dying units are functioning to find out the difference in the quality of water with particular reference to TDS level and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) was directed to find out the source and reason for high TDS level in the water in those areas. In order to ascertain these aspects, we had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of (1) the District Collector, Tiruppur District, (2) Scientist form Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), (3) Centre Water Resources Authority, (4) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), (5) Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai, (6) National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Chennai and (7) a Senior Scientist from National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Roorkee, Uttarkhand, India and if there is any Zonal Branch available in Chennai, [18] they can depute the officer of that unit for helping the committee to inspect all these areas in question and submit a report.
22.In pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal, the committee had submitted earlier report which reads as follows:-
"REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON DETAILED GROUND WATER QUALITY STUDY NEAR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA (COIR INDUSTRIES CLUSTER), KANGEYAM, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT IN THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 05 OF 2016 (SZ), SHRI M. KANDASAMY vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, E&F, CHENNAI AND OTHERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, SOUTHERN BENCH, CHENNAI, AS PER ORDER DATED 07th JANUARY, 2020 1.0 Back Ground While hearing the Original Application No. 05 OF 2016 (SZ), Shri.M. Kandasamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, E&F, Chennai and others, on 7thJanuary,2020, the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai has passed an order (Annexure-I) that;
"we feel it appropriate to conduct a detailed water quality test near the industrial area where the disputed industries are functioning and also within a radius of 20kms where the dyeing units are functioning to find out the difference in quality of water with particular reference to TDS level. TNPCB is directed to find out the source and reason for high TDS level in water in those areas.
Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to appoint a Join Committee consisting of (1) District Collector, Tiruppur District, (2) Scientist from Central Pollution Control Board, (3) Centre Water Resources Authority, (4) Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board, (5) I.I.T. Chennai, (6) NEERI, Chennai and (7) a Senior Scientist from National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India and if there is any Zonal branch available in Chennai, they can depute the officer of that unit for helping the committee to inspect all the areas in question and also the industrial areas to find out the reason for the high TDS level in water in the area and if so, what remedial action to be taken to rectify the same. The joint Committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal within a period of two months. TNPCB, Chennai will be the nodal agency for co-ordination."
In Compliance of above mentioned order, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board has requested the Regional Director, CPCB, the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board, the Director, IIT Madras, the Director, CSIR-NEERI, the Director, National Institute of Hydrology, vide District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Tiruppur North letter no. F.TPN1588/DEE/TNPCB/TPN/2019 dated 31/01/2020 to nominate the officials for joint inspection. In response to above letter officials were nominated by the respective departments and the committee was constituted comprising following officials;
[19]i. Dr.K. Vijayakarthikeyan, District Collector, Tiruppur. ii. Tmt.H.D.Varalaxmi, Sc.E/AD Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate (South), Bangalore.
iii. Thiru.Ramanand, Scientist -D, (Sr. Hydrologist), Central Ground Water Board.
iv. Thiru.K.SenthilVinayagam, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Tiruppur North v. Dr. S. Mathava Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras.
vi. Er. Jowin Joseph, Scientist, NEERI , Chennai. vii. Dr.Y.R.Satyaji Rao M.E. Ph.D., Scientist „G‟ and Head, National Institute of Hydrology.
Apart from the above Thiru.Er.S.Bharathiraja, AE, TNPCB, Tiruppur North also participated along with committee member. 2.0 Meeting & Planning The committee was met on 25.02.2020 and preliminary meeting was conducted at Collectorate, Tiruppur District. The committee has decided to co- opt Dr B.Jayaraman, Former under Secretary, Loss of Ecology Authority, Chennai as a co-opted member. During the meeting it was decided to carry out the preliminary inspection in and around the units located at Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District along with the Petitioner Thiru.M.Kandasamy.
3.0 Brief description about Coir Industries:
The Kangeyam Taluk in Tiruppur District is a coconut based industry area. There are more than 500 coconut oil industries and coconut copra fields(kalam) are located in this area. Hence a huge amount of coconut husk is generated in Kangeyam Taluk and this husk being used as a raw material for the coir based industries.
The manufacturing processes involved are beating, screening and solar drying operations. The raw material coconut husks are stocked on concrete platform and water being sprayed on the raw material to bring to wet condition. The wetted raw coconut husks are passed through beater/buster, the product obtained is passed through different sieve sizes of disintegrator to separate coir fibre and coir pith. The final fibre obtained is processed through machinery to obtain coir yarn. The excess water from raw coconut husk stocking area (wetting process) is being collected in collection pit and the same being reused for wetting process.
Coir fibres are found between the hard, internal shell and the outer coat of a coconut. The individual fibre cells are narrow and hollow, with thick walls made of cellulose. They are pale when immature, but later become hardened and yellowed as a layer of lignin is deposited on their walls. Each cell is about 1 mm (0.04 in) long and 10 to 20 μm (0.0004 to 0.0008 in) in diameter. Fibres are typically 10 to 30 centimetres (4 to 12 inch) long. Coir, or coconut fibre, is a natural fibre extracted from the outer husk of coconut and used in products such as floor mats, doormats, brushes and mattresses.
Coir Pith is a spongy material that binds the coconut fibre in the husk, coir pith is finding new applications. It is an excellent soil conditioner and is being extensively used as a soil-less medium for agri-horticultural purposes. With its [20] moisture retention qualities, coir pith is ideal for growing anthuriums and orchids.Coir Pith and Coir Fibres are not flammable. Uses of Coir:
1. Agricultural and Horticultural uses
2. Oil and Fluid Absorption
3. Animal Bedding
4. Construction material
5. Beds, sofas, mats, rope making and etc. Properties of Coir: These are multi-cellular, lignocellulosic, hard, a very coarse and rigid variety of natural fruit fibre. Its advantages are agro-renewability, biodegradability and a good blend of strength, length, extensibility, moisture retain and high durability or resistance against sunlight, saline water, microbes, etc. The coir manufacturing industries falls under white category as per the latest re-categorisation of the Central Pollution Control Board. The following five coir processing industries are located in Paranchervazhi Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District. All the five industries are surrounded by dry and wet agricultural lands. The unit of M/s. Amman Coirs, S.F.No.1203/B4, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s. C.S.Coirs, S.F.No.1200, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s. R.P.G.Coirs, S.F.No.1127, Poriyagoundanvalasu Village, M/s. Sri Amman Coirs, S.F.No.1201, Pallakattupudhur Village, M/s.Sri Ganapathy Coirs, S.F.No.1116, A & B, Pallakattupudhur Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District are existing units. The manufacturing process involved in the above said units are manufacturing of coconut fibre (through wet process), drying of coir pith and making coir pith block.
a. There are 5 units are located as cluster, in which 3 units involved in manufacturing of coconut fibre from coconut husk and the remaining 2 units involved in manufacturing of coir bricks/blocks from coir pith. b. The process for manufacturing of coconut fibre from the coconut husk carried out by the unit is wet process and manufacturing of coir bricks from coir pith is dry process.
c. It was noticed that the units were not in operation, the unit authorities reported that due to lack of export orders, operation was stopped since February 2020. d. The unit‟s locations were surrounded by dry lands in all the directions. e. There are no villages except a small homestead namely Poraiyagoundanvalasu located within 500 mts. radius of the coir units. f. The Coir units are using bore well water for their domestic and coir manufacturing process.
g. The units have provided paved platform in wetting section of the coconut husk wherein water is sprayed over the coconut husk shell just to keep in wet condition before being sent to the Beater/Buster. h. The units have provided water sprinkling arrangements in the Decorticator section and the Disintegrator section was enclosed with wooden sheets. i. The units have provided collection cum recycling tank for the collection and reuse of excess water from Coconut husk wetting section and water sprinkling section.
[21]j. The units have covered the sides of the screen with wooden sheets. k. The units have covered the sides of the connecting conveyors with wooden sheets.
l. The units have provided wind net arrestors in the periphery area where the Coir pith is stored and around the unit premises. m. The units have provided compound wall around the fibre drying yard. n. The units were storing the raw material and the coir pith waste in the open land as shown in the Google image Fig No: 1.
(i) Status of Pollution Control Measures taken:
Water Pollution Control Measures:
The units M/s C S Coir, M/s Sri Amman Coirs and M/s Sri Ganapathy Coirs are involved in manufacturing of Coir Fibre fromCoconut Husk. The units are generating trade effluent from its Coconut husk wetting section and water sprinkling section.
These units have provide collection cum recycling tank for reuse of excess water arise from Coconut husk wetting section and water sprinkling section.
The remaining two units M/s Amman Coirs and M/s R.P.G.Coirs are involved in coir brick/blocks manufacturing activity. The unit does not use water for its manufacturing process. Hence, trade effluent does not arise.
Air Pollution Control Measures:
Sl. Unit's Name Point source of Pollution control Operation
No Emission measures Status
1. M/s C S Coir Decorticator Water Sprinkling
arrangements
Disintegrator Enclosed with wooden
sheets Under
Rotary Screen Side covered with operationa
wooden sheets l condition
Connecting Conveyors Sides covered with
wooden sheets
Coir pith storage yard Wind net arrestor
2. M/s Sri Decorticator Water Sprinkling
Amman Coirs arrangements
Disintegrator Enclosed with wooden
sheets
Rotary Screen Side covered with Under
wooden sheets operationa
Connecting Conveyors Sides covered with l condition
wooden sheets
Coir pith storage yard Wind net arrestor
3. M/s Sri Decorticator Water Sprinkling
Ganapathy arrangements Under
Coirs operationa
Disintegrator Enclosed with wooden
l condition
sheets
Rotary Screen Side covered with
wooden sheets
Connecting Conveyors Sides covered with
wooden sheets
Coir pith storage yard Wind net arrestor
4. M/s Amman Coir Brick manufacturing activity is carried out inside the
Coirs roofedshed.
5. M/s RPG
Coirs
(ii) Details of villages located and Land use pattern around the subject site :[22]
Paranchervali is a Village in Kangeyam Block in Tiruppur District of Tamil Nadu State, India. It is located 29 KM towards East from District headquarters Tirupur and 428 KM from State capital Chennai, Paranjervali is surrounded by Chennimalai Block towards North, Vellakoil Block towards East, Pongalur Block towards west, Uttukkuli Block towards South. Vellakoil , Tiruppur , Palladam , Erode are the nearby Towns/Cities to Paranjervali. This Place is in the border of the Tiruppur District and Erode District. Chennimalai of Erode District is in North towards this place.
The coir units are located as cluster, in the East about 500.Mts from pallakatupudhur village, in the West about 700m from Chinnaparanchervazhi Village, in the north about 1000m from Velayuthampalayam and in the South 300m from Poriyagoundanvalasu hamlet.
Crops Grown - KangeyamTaluk
Map Soil Series Crops grown
Symbol
Rainfed Irrigated
3 Tulukkanur Cholam, Groundnut, Pulses, Cholam, Cumbu,
Tapioca Maize,
Groundnut,
Vegetables
4 Vannapatti Sunflower,Groundnut Groundnut,
Pulses Cumbu
Flowers
5 Syamalagoundenp Sunflower,Groundnut Groundnut,
udur Pulses Cumbu
Flowers
2 Suriyanallur Cholam, Pulses, Groundnut Cotton, Chillies,
Vegetables,
Flowers, Paddy
1 Kallivalasu Black gram, Coriandar, Cotton, Ragi,
Sunflower, Soyabean Chillies
Cholam, Maize,
Vegetables,
Paddy
In this particular soil as stated above the predominant crops are Cholam, Groundnut, Maize, Cumbu and coconuts are cultivated in Paranjervazhi Village of Kangeyam Taluk.
6.0 Monitoring Results & Discussions and other Specific observations:
i. Monitoring of Coir industries During field visit, the committee has collected samples in the bore wells located inside the unit premises, Inlet water used for the wetting purpose and the excess water after wetting collected as effluent in the collection tank with recycling facility the report of analysis are detailed in the below mentioned table.
Table 1: The intake water quality and effluent characteristics report of Coir industries [23] Sl Parameters Locations of samples taken No. M/s Amman Coirs M/s C.S. Coirs M/s Sri M/s Sri M/s RPG Plant-II Plant-III GanapathyCoirs Amman Coirs Plant-IV Coirs Intake Effluent Intake Effluen Intake Effluen Open Well Bore Water Water t Water t Well
1. Conductivity at 2120 2680 1588 1877 1375 1685 2310 1467 25°C
2. pH at 25°C 7.79 8.22 8.17 7.19 7.69 7.27 7.49 7.36
3. TDS at 180°C 1284 1677 1040 1172 828 1047 1425 943
4. Chloride as Cl 388 455 197 357 248 331 590 145
5. Sulphates as 494 494 803 547 313 126 534 259 SO4
6. COD BDL BDL 13 17 34 34 13 13 (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0)
7. Nitrate Nitrogen BDL 1.2 7.3 2.2 6.4 4.3 10.7 3.2 as NO3 (DL:1.0)
8. Potassium as K 51 34.5 11.6 146 12.6 160 9.9 12.8
9. %Sodium 369 105.5 26.7 104 102 123 102 100
10. Lignin BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (DL:0. (DL:0.
(DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5)
5) 5)
From the table no. 1, the TDS concentration (943 - 1425 mg/L) of intake water/open
well in the premises of industries was found within permissible limit of drinking water quality (2000 mg/L).
The waste water generated from the soaking process of Coconut husk contributes the inorganic substances such as Chloride and Potassium, no significant organic substances were observed in the waste water.
The TDS concentration was found increased around 13 - 30 % in the waste water generated from coir process industries and also it is observed that Sulphate concentration was found decrease in concentration in compare to intake water quality.
The lignin concentration was found below detectable limit in all three samples taken from coir processing industries.
ii. Monitoring of ground water in villages located around the Coirindustries:
The committee has collected ground water samples in various locations around the cluster of coir units as identified by the petitioner and the villagers. The sampling locations are in Murugampalayam Village, Shanthi Colony, Chikkampalayam, Kanakkatukadu, Aranmanikadu, Manthope and Noyyal River Sample near Uppliyapalayam localities.[24]
Thesample locationsof table 1 and table 2a are located within 750m from the cluster of the coir units are depicted in the fig no. 5 and the reports of analysis are detailed in the table 2a;
Table no. 2a: Analysis report of ground water samples taken within 750 m from the clusters of Coir industries S Parame Units Locations of samples taken l ters 002 005 008 009 010 011 012 013 N o. S.F.N S.F.NO.1204 S.F.NO S.F.NO S.F.NO S.F.NO.12 S.F.NO.1 Poriyago O.111 , .1201 - .1242 .1183 44 A, 197, undavala 3, CheniappaG Selvara Near Pallaka Jeyapraka Ponnusa su Water Open ounderThott jThotta LBP ttupudh samThotta myThotta supply Well - am - Open m, Canal ur Bore m Well m, sample Mr.D well Opposit S.F.NO well Sample - Balasubr uraisa e to .623 Govern (Not in amaniam my Amman Quarry ment use for 10 S/o.M Coir Water Water years) .Muth Bore Moorth Supply usamy well yThotta m Latitude - - - 11.066 11.067 11.0655 11.068956 11.06493 11.06487 &Longit 356° 475o 98o o 5o 6o ude 77.619 77.620 77.6234 77.623931 77.62049 77.61479 582° 094o 12o o 5o 1o
1. Conduct µs/c ivity at m 7010 2310 1657 2010 1951 1833 1511 1793 25°C
2. pH at -
6.68 7.17 7.42 7.44 7.15 7.5 7.17 7.67 25°C
3. TDS at mg/L 4091 1407 988 1275 1207 1102 910 1079 180°C
4. Chlorid mg/L 2329 580 305 528 305 373 300 279 e as Cl
5. Sulphat mg/L es as 1965 246 187 551 455 263 185 162 SO4
6. COD mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL 13 23 (DL:4.0 (DL:4. (DL:4. 22 9 (DL:4.0) ) 0) 0)
7. Nitrate mg/L BDL Nitroge BDL 30.5 (DL:1.0 16.5 60 2.7 8.7 42.5 n as (DL:1.0) ) NO3
8. Potassi mg/L 59 13.7 12.6 10 12.1 16.4 13.9 22.8 um as K
9. % mg/L 534 104 72.2 92 89.4 47.1 45.5 104 Sodium
10. Lignin mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL [25] (DL:0 (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5 (DL:0. (DL:0. (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) .5) ) 5) 5) From the table no. 2a, except well no 002, the TDS (910 - 1407 mg/L) and Chloride (279 - 580 mg/L) concentration in other 7 wells (located within 750 m from the clusters of coir industries) were found within the permissible limit of drinking water standards (TDS of 2000 mg/L and Chloride of 1000 mg/L).
No organic pollutants were observed in any wells.The concentration of nitrate as NO3 was found within acceptable limit (45 mg/L) of drinking water in all wells except Bore well (60 mg/L) of Government water supply. This may be due to prevailing human activities (bathing, washing cloth etc) near to the said bore well.
The high TDS concentration (4091 mg/L) in well no 002 may be due to surface runoff from the coir pith drying land since the well is very close to the coir pith drying area and drawal of water is not regular from the well. The concentration of Potassium (59 mg/L) in this well also indicates the inception of runoff from coir pith drying land.
The lignin concentration was found below detectable limit in all wells.
The samples locations taken behind the 750 m from clusters of Coir industries are depicted in Fig no. 5 and analysis reports of respective water samples are tabulated in Table 2b and 2c;
Table 2b: Analysis report of ground water samples taken behind 750m from the cluster coir industries Sl Parameters Units Locations of samples taken No. PS-1 PS-2 PS-3 PS-4 PS-5 PS-6 PS-7 SF.NO120 SF.NO120 SF.NO.12 SF.NO120 Murugam SF.NO.12 SF.NO.
9E 9 35 B-1 9 B2 palayam 09/11, 10- Shanthi
Murugapa Sakthivel Murugapa Subraman Near Jayapraka Colony
gounderM Murugam gounderM iMurugam Kovil sh, (Disused
urugampa palayam urugampa palayam Drinking Murugam Well)
layam Village layam Village water palayam
Village Village supply Village
well
Latitude -
11o07‟183 11o07‟201 11o07‟086 11o07‟014 11o08‟529
&Longitud 11o07‟114
1 4 9 4 3
e 7 -
77o62‟167 77o62‟188 77o62‟251 77o62‟206 77o62‟692
77o62‟040
4 1 7 4 5
3
1. Conductivit µs/cm 1510 2300 1591 2240 851 4010 5300
y at 25°C
2. pH at 25°C - 7.72 6.72 7.53 6.82 7.63 6.88 6.69
3. TDS at mg/L 891 1336 964 1356 540 2379 3368
180°C
[26]
4. Chloride as mg/L 279 419 274 399 399 1170 1739
Cl
5. Sulphates mg/L 28.5 145 43.2 60 60.2 380 353
as SO4
6. COD mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
(DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0)
7. Nitrate mg/L 38.5 69.9 53.2 70 13.1 50.9 5.78
Nitrogen as
NO3
8. Potassium mg/L 5 12 8.8 12.4 12.4 5.6 18.9
as K
9. % Sodium mg/L 91 101 100 104 104 60.8 62.8
10. Lignin mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
(DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5)
Table 2c: Analysis report of ground water samples taken behind 750m from the cluster coir industries Sl Parameters Units Locations of samples taken No. PS-8 PS-9 PS-10 PS-11 PS-12 PS-13 SF.NO127 Kanakkat Aranmanik Manthope SF.NO.12 Noyyal 1/6B ukaduBor adu on Bus stop 13 River Chikkamp ewell banks of Kandasam Kandasam Sample alayamSu Sample river y‟s House y‟sThotta Near bramani noyyal m Uppliyapal ayam Village o o o o o Latitude - 11 00‟978 11 09‟176 11 12‟1247 11 07‟689 11 07‟475 -
o o o &Longitude 077 62‟25 177 62‟18 77 63‟5402 2 5 59 45 77o62‟340 77o06‟175 3 5 1. Conductivity at µs/cm 1337 386 6800 1124 707 3320 25°C 2. pH at 25°C - 7.37 7.45 7.84 7.37 7.90 7.60 3. TDS at 180°C mg/L 811 232 4286 715 429 1936 4. Chloride as Cl mg/L 150 78 1698 129 48 595 5. Sulphates as SO4 mg/L 167 97 3086 401 12.9 47.8 6. COD mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) (DL:4.0) 7. Nitrate Nitrogen mg/L 8.9 8.5 14.1 54 5.61 1.6 as NO3 8. Potassium as K mg/L 8.7 6.2 75 9.9 13.3 58 9. % Sodium mg/L 89.5 14.4 933 55 50.9 571 10. Lignin mg/L BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) (DL:0.5) [27]
From the table no. 2b & 2c, except well nos PS -6, PS- 7 & PS-10, the TDS (232 - 1936 mg/L) and Chloride (48 - 595 mg/L) concentration in other 9 wells (located behind 750 m from the clusters of coir industries) were found within the permissible limit of drinking water standards (TDS of 2000 mg/L and Chloride of 1000 mg/L).
Except well no PS 10, the sulphate concentration in all wells found within the permissible limit (400 mg/L) of drinking water.
No organic pollutants were observed in any wells.The concentration of nitrate as NO3 was found within acceptable limit (45 mg/L) of drinking water in 7 wells, in other 5 wells (PS-2, PS-3,PS-4, PS-6 & PS- 10) the nitrate concentration was reported more than 45 mg/L. The high TDS concentration (4286mg/L) in well no PS-10 (located on the bank of Noyyal) may be due to impact of Noyyal river carrying sewage, past illegal discharges of dying effluent and may be because of the land and soil strata.
The High TDS concentration (2379 & 3368 mg/L) was observed in two wells namely PS-6 & PS-7, this may because the wells are been not used for several years and may be because of the land and soil strata.
The lignin concentration was found below detectable limit in all wells.
iii. Lab scale study of Coir Pith Soaked in distilled water and raw water used by Coir processing industries and its analysis reports:
The committee has decided to conduct a pilot study to know about the properties of water when reacted with coir pith for a period of 20 days. The experiment was conducted with raw water used by the unit and also with distilled water. The methodology adopted is briefed below.
Methodology adopted for pilot study Step-1 Preliminary analysis of raw water used by the units for - pH, Electrical Conductivity& TDS.
Step-2 Preliminary analysis of Distilled water for - pH, Electrical conductivity & TDS Step-3 Adding 12.5gm of Coir Pith in 40 numbers of containers. Step-4 Divided the containers as two batches. 20 numbers of containers as First batch and 20 number of containers as second batch. Step-5 Labeled the containers as Day1, Day2, Day3,.......Day20 for First batch and in same way for second batch.
Step-6 Added 250ml of RAW WATER in each of the first batch 20 containers. Step-7 Added 250ml of DISTLLED WATER in each of the Second batch 20 containers.
Step-8 After 24 hrs the container labelled as DAY1 (Coir pith soaked in RAW WATER one container and likewise Coir pith soaked in DISTLLED WATER in another container) and the analysis for pH, Electrical conductivity, TDS on both the above said containers were carried out.[28]
Step-9 2nd day the container labelled as DAY 2 is taken for analysis of pH, Electrical Conductivity & TDS.
Step-10 The processes of analysis for all the containers were considered so that end of the 20th day to know the quality of RAW WATER & DISTLLED WATER soaked with coir pith.
Table 3: Results on quality of distilled water and raw water after soaking of coir from Day 1 to 20 No.of Coir Soaked with Distilled Water Coir Soaked with Raw Water Days pH Conductivity TDS pH Conductivity TDS µs/cm mg/L µs/cm mg/L Before 5.25 13 6.56 7.61 1515 759 Soaking of coir pith Day - 1 6.80 779 394 7.23 2060 1030 Day - 2 5.86 862 431 6.20 2050 1020 Day - 3 6.65 791 395 7.14 2040 1020 Day - 4 6.82 759 375 7.45 2040 1020 Day - 5 6.85 774 387 7.31 1673 836 Day - 6 6.83 772 387 7.38 1986 979 Day - 7 6.85 758 378 7.40 2020 1010 Day - 8 7.03 753 375 7.48 2010 1000 Day - 9 6.91 756 378 7.47 1998 995 Day- 10 6.97 759 379 7.66 1924 963 Day- 11 7.02 806 403 7.59 1986 993 Day- 12 6.94 787 392 7.56 1934 966 Day- 13 6.96 700 300 7.66 2000 1000 Day- 14 6.96 804 402 7.58 1889 941 Day- 15 6.95 774 389 7.55 1967 942 Day- 16 6.89 606 303 7.60 1976 987 Day- 17 7.01 774 387 7.58 2060 1030 Day- 18 6.96 771 385 7.65 1980 990 Day- 19 6.95 802 401 7.58 1997 998 Day- 20 6.96 776 388 7.68 2000 1000 From the above study, it is observed that no significant change in pH of water before soaking and after of coir pith in distilled water as well as in potable water.
After soaking of coir pith in distilled water for 24 hr, the TDS got increase from 6.56 mg/L to 394mg/L and the conductivity increased from13 µs/cm to 779 µs/cm.
After one day, contribution of EC and TDS was found more or less same and there is no major change in concentration till20 th day. The results from day one to day twenty is shown in the graph and table which reveals that there is no major contribution of TDS by the [29] Pith with duration of number of days.The comparison reveals that there may be no TDS contribution of the coir piths into the ground water.
7.0 Conclusion of the Joint Committee based on the field observations and Monitoring:
(i) Waste Water generated from Coir Industries :
A. As per CPCB Re-categorisation the unit comes under White Category 4023 - manufacturing of coir items from coconut husks. The units involved in export activity they are in need of Pollution Control Board Consent Order. Hence in order to consider the application for the issue of consent, the category has been taken as Green 3999 -Miscellaneous. B. The analysis reports of samples taken from the three industries indicates that no significant contribution of organic pollutants and lignin in the waste water.
C. The TDS concentration (1047 - 1677 mg/L) in the waste water (from soaking process of coconut husk) found moderate, since the same being recycled in the soaking process no impact in the surrounding was observed.
D. The results of the lab scale study carried out with the coir pith reveals that there is no major contribution of TDS by the pith to the water. The TDS of the raw water was measured as 759 mg/L on the first day after soaking the TDS was increased to 1030 mg/L later on till 20 th day there is no increase in TDS. The study also reveals that the coir pith is having tendency to increase the TDS in the form of inorganic compounds viz. chloride and potassium which is naturally available in the coconut. E. As per the information of Coir Board, the Coir pith has very high moisture retention capacity of 600- 800 per cent and can be as high as 1100 per cent of dry weight. The Coir Board of India has certified that the product manufactured from these units is Bio-degradable and eco- friendly.
ii. Ground water Quality in the surrounding area:
As per the result of analysis of the samples collected from the surrounding villages within 750 m from the cluster of coir industries reveals that no impact on ground water due to process of coconut husk into coir and pith.
High TDS was observed in only one open well which is located near to coir pith drying area, the reported well was not in use for long time. The high TDS may be caused due to cumulative effect of surface runoff from coir pith drying area or due to non withdrawal of water or may be due to the land and soil strata.
As per the result of analysis of the samples collected from the surrounding villages behind the 750 m from the cluster of coir industries also reveals that no impact on ground water.[30]
The Bore well/open well located near to Noyyal River has high TDS due to past impact of Noyyal river carrying treated/untreated effluents of dyeing units of Tiruppur.
It is worth to express that no significant TDS concentration was observed in the petitioner‟s open wells tagged as PS-11 and PS-12 tabulated under table-2c, indicates the TDS levels as 429 mg/L and 715 mg/L which are located one km away from the clusters of coir industries which also confirms the no impact due to coir industrial activities. 8.0 Suggestion of Joint Committee :
It is to be noted that the coir processing has been certified and promoted as a "Non polluting Industry" producing "eco-friendly products" by the Coir Board, Ministry of MSME, Government of India letters dated 14.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 attached as annexure-I & II. Subsequently after field investigation followed by evaluation and understanding the process involved in the cluster of coir processing industries in the region, it can be asserted that there is no process water that escapes into the environment which could possibly contribute to the ground water TDS level. However on rare occasions, it could be anticipated for any incidental storm water run-off passing through the coir material drying regions, if persistently occurs, might marginally contribute to the rise in TDS to the water bodies receiving the run offs. Such conditions are very rare, since the coir drying process is carried out only during non- monsoon seasons. However to nullify even such unaccustomed eventuality, an effective management plan is provided under the suggestions to have a check on such sporadic incidents.
Suggestions to implement the following measures;
i. The coir drying area shall be properly earmarked and protected with the suitable cloth/ LDPE sheet around the drying area for the height of 12 feet.
ii. Construction of guard channel and pond to collect surface runoff from the coir pith drying area to avoid runoff into any water bodies. iii. Close monitoring of ground water quality around the coir industries to watch the change in water quality if any.
iv. The coir pith drying / storageprocess shall be carried out in an impervious platform by laying LDPE/HDPE sheets or the storage/drying yard shall be lined with Clay textured soils having lesser permeability.
The Committee visited the subject area during February 25 & 26, 2020 and collected the ground water samples in presence of the applicant and as per the information‟s provided by the applicant and villagers for better understanding of the subject site. The present report limits its study with focus only on the cluster of white category coir processing industries.
[31]Due to pandemic COVID-19 outbreak in all over the country, the committee could not visit for further monitoring of ground water extending to the 20km radius as directed by the Hon‟ ble NGT.
Also since no specific historic data is made available on the quality and status of ground water in the region, it cannot be concluded that there is any rise in TDS levels in recent years as alleged. If there was an increase in the TDS levels in ground water of the regions in recent years as alleged, it is suggested to take up detail ground water study to ascertain the TDS profile in two season viz. monsoon and post monsoon."
23.It is seen from the report of the committee that there is no possibility of any pollution being caused on account of the operation of these units. They have also mentioned in the report that the air quality and water quality are within the norms and all pollution control mechanisms are being strictly adhered to by these units. Since, most of the articles used are bio-
degradable in nature and eco-friendly, there is no possibility of damage being caused to the soil and water. However, they have given certain suggestions as they also did not rule out the possibility of pollution being caused, if the soaked water collected in these industries are let off by run off during raining season, it is likely to join the water bodies and cause pollution.
24.In order to avoid such things, they have given certain suggestions which reads as follows:-
"8.0 Suggestion to Joint Committee:
It is to be noted that the coir processing has been certified and promoted as a "Non polluting Industry" producing "Eco-friendly Products"
by the Coir Board, Ministry of MSME, Government of India letters dated 14.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 attached as Annexure -I & II. Subsequently, after field investigation followed by evaluation and understanding the process involved in the cluster of coir processing industries in the region, it can be asserted that there is no process water that escapes into the environment which could possibly contribute to the ground water TDS level. However, on rare occasions, it could be anticipated for any incidental storm water run-off passing through the coir material drying regions, if persistently occurs, might marginally contributed to the rise in the TDS to the water bodies receiving the run offs. Such conditions are very rare, since the coir drying process is [32] carried out only during non-monsoon seasons. However to nullify even such unaccustomed eventually, an effective management plan is provided under the suggestions to have a check on such sporadic incidents.
Suggestions to implement the following measures:
(i) The coir drying area shall be properly earmarked and protected with the suitable cloth/LDPE sheet around the drying area for the height of 12 feet.
(ii) Construction of guard channel and pond to collect surface run off from the coir pith drying area to avoid run off into any water bodies.
(iii) Close monitoring of ground water quality around the coir industries to watch the change in water quality if any.
(iv)The coir pith drying/storage process shall be carried out in an impervious platform by laying LDPE/HDPE sheets or the storage/drying yard shall be lined with Clay textured soils having lesser permeability."
25.So considering the circumstances, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving certain directions for regular monitoring as well as for complying with the suggestions given by the committee by the industries.
26.So, this application is disposed of as follows:-
The respondents 8 to 12 are directed to implement the measures suggested by the Joint Committee in the Para 8 of the report so as to avoid the possible pollution that is anticipated to be caused on precautionary principle to avoid such things happening in future.
The Pollution Control Board is directed to monitor the industries periodically so as to ascertain as to whether the pollution control norms are being adhered to by the industries and the waste management rules are being properly complied with so as to avoid possible pollution to environment.
If there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate steps against those industries who are violating the norms and causing pollution.[33]
They are also directed to monitor the air as well as water quality, whenever complaint regarding the contamination is being reported and if any contamination is found, trace out the persons who are responsible for the same and take action against them in accordance with law including recovery of environmental compensation apart from providing remedial measures to remove the contamination.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the application.
27.With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ..................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.05/2016 (SZ), 28th October, 2020. Mn.
[34]