National Green Tribunal
News Item Published In Hindustan Times ... vs These M.As Have Been Filed In Pursuance ... on 17 April, 2023
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 01 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
M.A. No. 21/2023, M.A. No. 22/2023 & M.A. No. 23/2023
IN
Original Application No. 448/2022
In re : News item published in Hindustan Times dated 03.06.2022 titled
"178 women workers fall ill after gas leak in Andhra's Visakhapatnam"
M.A. No. 21/2023 & M.A. No. 22/2023
M/s. Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd.: Applicant
M.A. No. 23/2023
M/s. Brandix Apparel India Pvt. Ltd.: Applicant
Date of hearing: 17.04.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Mr. Vikram Pooserla, Senior Advocates with
Mr. Sayooj Mohandas.M, Advocate for Applicant (M/s Brandix Intimate
Pvt. Ltd.) in M.A No. 21-22/2023
Mr. Vikram Pooserla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
for Applicant (M/s Brandix Apparel India Pvt. Ltd.) in M.A No. 23/2023
ORDER
1. These M.As have been filed in pursuance of observations in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No(s). 1515 OF 2023, M/S. Brandix Apparel India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) & Ors. as follows:-
"One of the objections raised by the appellant(s) before us in the present appeals while questioning the order dated 18.01.2023 is that the Tribunal has determined the compensation without impleading the 1 present appellant(s) as one of the respondent(s) and what is being indicated from the order impugned is that the present appellant(s) who are directly affected have not been heard and dented their right of fair opportunity of hearing is in violation of principles of natural justice.
It reveals from the order (OA No. 448 of 2022) that Mr. Varun Byreddy. Advocate appeared for M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd., SEZ, and before us, the appellants are (1) M/s. Brandix India Apparel India Pvt. Ltd. and (1) M/s Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd., who were not the party-respondents before the Tribunal.
Taking the objection raised by the appellants on its face value, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, however, we grant liberty to the appellants to file their respective application before the Tribunal. If such an application is filed, it may be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits, taking note of the grievance which the appellant(s) have pointed out to this Court, obviously after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law, and without being prejudice with the observations made in the order impugned dated 18.01.2023.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) submit that they will file the application within two weeks from today.
With these observations/directions, the present appeals are disposed of."
2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. M.A Nos. 21 & 22/2023 have been filed by M/s Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd. seeking permission to file M.A and for modification of order dated 18.01.2023. M.A. No. 23/2023 has been filed by M/s Brandix Apparel India Pvt. Ltd. seeking deletion from the array of parties, as was earlier sought in I.A. No. 191/2022 in O.A. No. 448/2022 on the ground that concerned party is its sister concern M/s Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd. An additional affidavit has also been filed by M/s Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd. in M.A. No. 22/2023 to file additional documents.
3. Before considering the above, we may refer to order dated 18.01.2023 in O.A. No. 448/2022 dealing with media report about gas leak 2 11 at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, affecting the health of 178 women workers on 03.06.2022.
4. Vide order dated 03.08.2022, the Tribunal constituted a six member joint Committee headed by Chairman State PCB with Regional Director, CPCB, nominee of NDMA, Prof. P. Jagannadha Rao, Department of Chemical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, District Magistrate, Anakapalli, Director Industrial Safety, Andhra Pradesh and Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad as members, to undertake visit to the site, ascertain cause of the incident and suggest remedial measures.
5. Report of the Committee dated 14.12.2022 was considered vide order dated 18.01.2023. Relevant extracts from which are as follows:-
"5.0 Description of the incidents:
5.1 First Incident on 03.06.2022:
The first incident occurred on 03.06.2022 for a short duration of about 10 minutes between 11.50 Am to 12.00 Noon. As reported by the management of the company, the employees of M/s. Brandix Intimate India (P) got affected due to inhalation of an unknown obnoxious gas and reported symptoms like vomiting, bowl irritation and breathlessness. Soon after-
hearing the widespread news of the incident, the District Collector, Anakapalli, the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Narsipatnam, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli, the Environmental Engineer & Assistant Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Visakhapatnam and I/c Inspector of Factories & Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Visakhapatnam rushed to the location and inspected the premises of M/s. Brandix Intimate India (P). The sequence of activities during first incident at BIIL are as below:
11.56:30 - Camera No. 45 (M1-Area 8) - Sewing line 1 towards Quantum.
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th employees witnessed smell.
11:56:30 - Camera -45 (M1 Area 08) - Line one, Associates 02, 03 and 04 (Yellow marked point at M1 block) 11:57:20 - Camera -43 (M1 Area 06) - Associates hurries towards exit 11:57:08 - Camera -10 (M1 - M2 corridor) - Associate had a vomiting sensation 3 11:57:09 - Camera -49 (M1 Area 12) - Bottom right two employees observe the smell 11:57:22 - Camera -60 (M2 Area 01) - Associate from the third line feels discomfort and few more associates in the same line 11:57:47 - Camera -41 (M1 Area 04) - Associate runs towards the exit 11:58:50 - Camera -57 (Packing) - All felt unpleasant smell 11:59:30 - Camera -27 (Cutting 02) - Female associate feeling dizzy 11:56:40 - Camera -04 (M2 backside 01) - Associate vomiting The workers who were admitted into hospitals day wise were given in table No.1.
Table No.1: Day wise admission of workers into Hospital Day wise Hospital details Day wise Date M1 M2 L Building admissions 03.06.2022 92 81 22 195 04.06.2022 76 60 22 158 05.06.2022 20 16 2 38 06.06.2022 7 6 4 17 07.06.2022 0 0 0 0 08.06.2022 0 0 0 0 09.06.2022 1 1 0 2 10.06.2022 0 0 0 0 12.06.2022 0 0 0 0 Total 196 164 50 410 5.2 Second Incident on 02.08.2022:
After two days of the joining of workers from M / s Quantum Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. into the M/s. Brandix Intimate India (P), the first incident occurred on 3-6-2022.After the first incident, the activity in the M1 building was closed till 15.06.2022 and the work in the M1 block of BIIL was resumed on 16.06.2022. The management of the M/s BIIL stopped chemical spraying for pest control work after the first incident (03.06.2022). After a gap of 59 days again the fumigation process was restarted on 01-08-2022. The Beta Cyfluthrin 2.45% SC (SC: Suspension Concentrate) chemical was used for fumigation of the outside the premises. Moreover, subsequent to the first incident, the management decided to spray the pest and insect control chemical during the night times after completion of the B or second shift (from 2.00 PM. to 10.00 PM). Accordingly, on 01-08-2022, Beta Cyfluthrin 2.45% SC was sprayed for pest control from 11.00 PM after the B shift. The chemical for pest control was sprayed for a total duration of approximately 3 hours. The pest control operator had sprayed the chemical at the verandah and outside the Ml, M2, L and N blocks. The workers, who came to work on 02-08-2022 for the first shift from 6.00 AM to 2.00 PM, did not feel/ sense any odor or smell. After their shift by 2.00 PM, they went back to their homes safely.4
The other group of workers who came for the B or second shift started feeling the smell or odor from around 6:40 PM. Normally, the workers in the B shift take a break and go to the canteen in two spells. The 1st spell is from 6.00 PM to 6.30 PM and 2nd spell is from
6.40 PM to 7.10 PM. The workers who went for dinner break during the 1St spell were not affected and didn't sense any smell except a few who returned to the M1 block after completion of the first break. They completed their break for snack / dinner from 6.00 PM to 6.30 PM and returned to their duty. The workers, during the dinner break for second spell, came out from M1 block at about 6.30 PM from north side exit for going to the rest rooms besides collecting their dinner / snack boxes from lockers on the northern side of the M1 block. During this period, these workers have sensed an unpleasant odor or smell initially at lockers area and in the verandah and open space abutting the lockers area around 6:40 PM. A little later, some of the workers, who had been exposed to the odor, experienced nausea and vomiting sensation. Immediately, these workers have been moved to a safe place towards neighboring factory on west side i.e. M/s Quantum Clothing India Pvt Ltd. From there, some of the workers were shifted to the nearby hospitals and others were shifted to their homes by buses. Some of the workers, who had uncomfortable symptoms while going home, were also joined in the nearby hospitals. A total 129 workers were admitted in different hospitals located in Anakapalli and Atchyuthapuram. The details are shown in Table 2. The sequence of activities during second incident at BIIL are as below:
18.43 PM : In the mid bay (corridor) of M1 and M2, one worker from M1 block while going to canteen area sensed an unpleasant smell. 18.47 PM : Another worker from the M1 block complained about the smell to welfare officer.
18.55 PM : Unit Engineering, safety, HR and other teams also felt the smell in the mid bay area and checked for other areas.
19.00 PM : It was observed that a smell had been felt in midway exit areas (corridors) and no smell was experienced in other areas viz.
inside the Ml, M2, and L blocks, the entrance security gate area of the BIIL and the open spaces at other locations.
19.20 PM : All the areas were checked continuously for detection of smell and all the AHUs and AC's were switched off as a precautionary measure.
19.20 PM : One worker was taken by wheel chair to medical room (OHC).
19.22 PM : Another worker moved from M l and M2 path ways to medical room.
19.28 PM : Another worker reported from lockers area to medical room and another associate reported from M1 path way to medical room.
19.45 PM : One more worker started vomiting and ambulance was made ready.
5 1519.46 PM : First patient moved from the factory to Medirise Hospital, Atchutapuram by ambulance.
20.00 PM : Few more workers started complaining about vomiting, headache and dizziness. Stated evacuation of workers and shifted sick employees to nearby hospitals and got logistic support from all other Brandix units.
21.00 PM : The shift operations were suspended in all areas of the unit and started sending all the workers to their homes.
The workers who were admitted into various hospitals were discharged within a day after medical treatment. The district administration reacted promptly and reached the incident site. They along with the factory and M/s Brandix India Apparel City personnel assessed the situation and took care of the affected persons.
Table 2: No. of Workers Admitted in Different Hospitals S. Hospital Name No. of workers No. admitted 1. NTR 43 2. Usha Prime 46 3. Satyadev 14 4. Medirise 15 5. SreeVaibhav 6 6. Starzen 5 Total 129 The affected people were provided medical treatment and the needy people were admitted in to different hospitals. The officials of Director of Factories, AP Pollution Control Board, Revenue, Police and other departments at the district level looked into the incident issues and conducted studies. Apart from the above government machinery, the premier institutions involved in the study to analyze the incident scenario include NIE, NIN, etc.,"
6.6...Investigation conducted by various departments:
xxx......................................xxx...........................................xxx iii. ICMR, NIN 85 NIE: The APPCB requested ICMR-NIN on behalf of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to investigate into the sudden unknown illness of employees of M/s. Seeds Intimate Apparel Pvt. Ltd wherein women employees were admitted in Govt. 86 Pvt. Hospitals of Anakapalli District. The Director NIN constituted a multi disciplinary team to conduct outbreak investigation. Another team was also constituted by Dr. Manoj Murekar, Director, ICMR- National Institute of Epidemiology as per the request of APPCB. The teams visited the factory, observed CC TV footage, visited hospital and collected blood and urine samples and also conducted in depth interviews with patients and treating doctors etc., ICMR - NIN, Hyderabad and ICMR - NIE, Chennai jointly submitted investigation report. As per the report, the community diagnosis is "The clinical picture and epidemic pattern are characteristic of a common source, single exposure outbreak. The acute clinical 6 signs and symptoms were suggestive of inhalation of organophosphate insecticide. The biomarker of Imidacloprid, an insecticide, were found in four samples among the exposed".
This is suggestive of inhalation of Imidacloprid Insecticide, but the source of exposure might be accidental or incidental". The detailed report is enclosed as Annexure - 7.
.......
7.0 Recommended remedial measures to prevent such incidents:
Based on the field observations about prevailing working condition, involvement of huge manpower, the Committee suggests following remedial measures to prevent such accidents;
i. The unit should have proper ventilation system as per the guidelines of Industry and Factories Act ii. Any pest/insecticide control fumigation should be taken when no workers in the working place. On application of pesticide/insecticide proper time has to give for dilution and should not impact on any workers.
iii. The unit should ensure the certified pesticides/insecticides application in inside of the building to avoid any unforeseen circumstances in future.
iv. The pest/insecticide control fumigation should be taken under the guidance of qualified/ trained person who has knowledge about proper ratio of mixing rate of application etc., v. The accessibility of air handling unit to be restricted to only maintenance personals and no other persons are allowed in the area.
vi. The unit should give proper and periodical mock drill training to all workers to enable them to safeguard their health 86 life in case of any unforeseen situations.
vii. Periodical medical examination of workers shall be conducted
8.0 Concluding Remarks of Committee:
The Committee visited the site / location of incidents, the surrounding areas, factories in the Brandix apparel park. The Committee examined the information collected, various reports submitted on the incident and the CC camera footages and the interactions with victims etc.,. Based on these, there are multiple external and internal sources that could have lead to the incident. Some of these are given below:7
a. In the first incident (occurred on 03.06.2022), the IICT chemical analysis of various air and dust samples collected from the area inside the shed and the air handling system of M1 and M2 buildings of M/s.Brandix Intimate India (P) Ltd (BILL) (formerly known as M/s.Seeds Intimate Apparel India (P) Ltd), shows the presence of several chemicals like acetonitrile, dichoromethane, ethyl acetate, n-hexane, toluene, chloromethane, cyclopropane, acetaldehyde, furan, acetone, 2-
methyl propanal, n-butanol, 2-methyl furan, 2-butanone, benzene, 2, 3 butanedione, 2-methyl butanol, Chlorphyrifos. On the other hand, The ICMR-NIN 8s ICMR-NIE, as mentioned in their report, observed that the clinical picture and the epidemic pattern are characteristic of a single exposure outbreak. The acute clinical signs and symptoms were suggestive of inhalation of organophosphate insecticide. The bio marker of Imidacloprid, an Insecticide, were found in four samples among the exposed samples taken from 52 people. This is suggestive of inhalation of Imidacloprid. But as per the statement recorded from Sri K. Muthyalu, the pest control contract worker during investigation by Factories Department, it was found that the insecticide used on 01.08.2022 night was "Beta Cyfluthrin" but not Imidacloprid. This requires a more detailed probe and analysis.
b. The CC camera footage shows the execution of pest control activity by the concerned person across the outdoor and indoor areas like M1 block, M2 block, L block etc., at the corners of walls and floor on 03.06.2022 between 9 am to 11 am when all the workers were present at their respective work places. None of them have been found depicting any sign of sensing the smell or feeling inconvenience etc., due to application of insecticides very close to them during the application of the pesticide. The statement recorded by the Factories Department from Sri M. Gangaraju who applied the insecticide on 02.06.2022, it is clear that there was no stock of the pesticide "Alpha Cypermethrin 10%EC" which was intended for indoor spraying since 01.06.2022. It is further clear that the pesticide "Chlorpyrifos 20% EC" was used for inside and outside spraying also. In this background, it needs to be ascertained as to whether pesticides being used and their concentrations and dilution with water can create any impact on the workers that too in a scenario, as could be seen from CC footage, where the person applying spray was continuously walking with the sprayer gun thereby not facilitating the accumulation of concentration of pesticide at any given spot. This has to be juxtaposed with the deposition of the Welfare Officer Mrs Lavanya, who was around the incident scene. She was found to be comfortable in CC footages on 02.08.2022. The Committee interacted with her and she stated to the Committee that the number of workers who were affected at the incident area were few. After a while, she went to her place of work i.e., M1 block and found all the workers have gone to neighboring factory premises called M/s Quantum Clothing India Private Limited. She also went to the said neighboring factory. When she reached there, she was shocked that several workers had started exhibiting symptoms of toxic 8 exposure in a premises where hardly smell was reported and everything seemed normal.
c. The sequential connectivity has to be established in the behavior of the workers as to how the incident can trigger and spread in the way it was shown in CC footages.
d. As per the investigation conducted by the Committee constituted by the District Collector, Anakapalli concluded that spraying of Chlorphyrifos 20% EC between the production blocks and the accumulated vapors underneath the lean to roof were sucked into the fresh air inlet ducts of 4 air handling units installed on slab of M1 86 M2 blocks there by leading to the incident. Thus, it has to be confirmed if the concerned air emissions released from the solution in liquid form (consisting of 1ml pesticide chemical in 100 ml of water) and the dispersion characteristics of the emissions led to the incident.
In view of the above observations, the Committee unanimously felt the need for conducting a separate and in- depth study of all the industrial activities of the factories around up to 1 km from M/s.Brandix Intimate India (P) Ltd (BILL) (formerly known as M/s.Seeds Intimate Apparel India (P) Ltd),. This study will help the Committee in understanding and assessing possible scenarios, which can result into such incidents, which have happened, in Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd.,. This study will also help in ruling out certain probabilities for these incidents, which in turn helps the Committee to move closure to the conclusion at the earliest. The Committee has also expressed that the Andhra University at Visakhapatnam, being one of oldest and one of the best-rated Universities in the Country, may be requested for carrying out this study with a time line of 3 months. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that an additional time of 4 more months may be granted to the Committee for submission of final report in this matter."
6. Considering the above and hearing learned counsel for the appearing parties, the Tribunal held as follows:-
"7. We find that there is overwhelming preponderance of probabilities to hold that M/s Brandix, where the two incidents have taken place, is responsible for the incidents of gas leak affecting large number of persons. If on account of hazardous commercial activity of any enterprise any person is affected, principle of absolute liability is attracted in view of M.C Mehta & Anr v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC
395. It is not necessary to prove negligence. Results of sample taken from the unit establish presence of several chemicals like acetonitrile, dichoromethane, ethyl acetate, nhexane, toluene, chloromethane, cyclopropane, acetaldehyde, furan, acetone, 2-methyl propanal, n- butanol, 2-methyl furan, 2-butanone, benzene, 2, 3 butanedione, 2- methyl butanol, Chlorphyrifos. There is nothing to rebut natural 9 inference of nexus of M/s Brandix with the toxic gas which affected large number of victims and the environment in tow incidents. Thus, this establishment has to follow laid down safety protocols in future and compensate the victims and the environment. While any further investigation may be done, as far as present proceedings are concerned, the same can be disposed of in view of our above conclusion. Conclusive scientific evidence may not be necessary to determine liability which can be on preponderance of probabilities. The matter is governed by 'Reverse Burden of Proof' where the PP is to show that its activity had no nexus to the damage. Legal position on the subject is well settled in view of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Indian Council for Enviro Legal action, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
8. Accordingly, we hold that 539 workers identified in the report as having been admitted to hospital by gas leak are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.1 lac each. The PP is held accountable to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Crores. According to learned Counsel for Brandix its annual turnover is Rs.100 crore. The amount may be deposited with the State PCB within two months failing which coercive measures, including closure may be taken by State PCB. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5 Crores may be remitted by the State PCB to A.P State Legal Services Authority for being disbursed to the victims, preferably within three months, after receipt by the Authority. If there is any deficit, the State PCB may make up the same and if it is surplus, the Authority may return the same to State PCB for restoration measures. We request the A.P State Legal Services Authority to prepare an action plan for identification and payment to the victims. The remaining amount may be spent by the State PCB for environmental improvement in the area by preparing an action plan with the approval of CPCB. Such plan be prepared within one month and considered by CPCB within further one month. Restoration measures will include installation of equipments for monitoring volatile compounds in the area, apart from plantations and other measures. Restitution work be executed within six months with the involvement of all stake holders, including the PP."
7. We have already noted the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal against the above order.
8. Contentions raised on behalf of the applicants are that the concerned party is M/s Brandix Intimate India Pvt. Ltd. ("BIIPL") and not its sister concerns M/s Brandix Apparel India Pvt. Ltd. ("BAIPL") and M/s Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Ltd. ("BIACPL"). Secondly, since the Committee had suggested further studies to determine the sources of emission, the Tribunal could not have fixed liability of the PP merely on suspicion by invoking 'Precautionary' principle. In support of this submission, reliance 10 has been placed on judgement of this Tribunal dated 08.08.2013 in Appeal No. 57 of 2013, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board & Ors.1 as follows:-
"142. The action taken by the Board on 29 March, 2013 directing closure of the appellant-company's unit was not as much of a preventive direction with reference to precautionary principle as it was a punitive measure, recourse to which was taken on the premise that there was excessive emission on 23 March, 2013 and it had caused health hazards to the people residing 6-8 kms. away from the appellant-company's unit. It could not be prevented as according to the Respondent-Board itself, the event had already happened and it was not an anticipated action. At best, it was partially preventive and primarily punitive so that firstly, the people do not suffer eye irritation, throat irritation or suffocation in future and secondly, because complaints in that regard had already been received The parameters for taking punitive action are entirely different to the ones that may be required for passing directions as per precautionary principle. Since there was no reasonable scientific data and the Respondent-Board itself did not even care to collect stack and ambient air quality samples post-23 March 2013, we fail to understand as to how such an order could be passed, particularly in view of the admitted position that there are large number of industries in SIPCOT and out of which quite a few industries are heavy and 'red' category industries in relation to causing pollution. They were admittedly discharging gases. It is also equally true that the alleged health problems could result from discharge of other gases besides SO2. The order passed by the Respondent-Board is not based on precautionary principle but is a punitive direction in terms of Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As a condition precedent to punitive action, it ought to have been established that there had been excessive emission from the stack of the appellant-company's unit and that the ambient air quality analysis showed presence of SO, primarily attributable to the appellant-company's plant and then it had travelled to the villages 6- 8 kms. away and had affected the health of its' residents. Once this was established as a ground for punitive action, that itself could form a valid basis for passing the preventive order in relation to future. In the case of punitive action, it should be tested on the touch-stone of validly proved action while in a preventive order, it could be done as per a reasonable apprehension of a prudent person. Stringent proof and specific scientific data is the very crux for passing such direction and absence thereof would vitiate the action taken."
9. While we find no difficulty in permitting modification to the effect that our order will relate to M/s BIIPL, we do not find any merit in the contention that no liability can be fixed. It may be stated that the matter was fully debated earlier and view was taken on merits after hearing all the 1 2014 SCC OnLine NGT 7094 11 parties. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding about the source of gas leak being on account of hazardous commercial activity of the PP- M/s Brandix for which the PP was held accountable on principle of 'Absolute' Liability. It could not be shown that activities of the PP had no nexus to the damage. No meaningful further argument has been raised. Judgement relied upon has no relevance as the same is in a different context and in a different fact situation. The judgement does not lay down any inflexible principle of law that no liability can be fixed when the Tribunal is satisfied from the record about liability of an entity merely because a Committee suggests further enquiry about source of emission when in the opinion of the Tribunal such further enquiry is unnecessary. It is clear that source of gas leak is from activities of the PP. Presence of several chemicals stands established in the unit of the PP and it is not be rebutted that toxic gas is from the said chemicals. Large number of persons within the premises of the PP were admittedly affected. In no other unit, any other person was affected. This itself ruled out the source being any other unit. Thus, there was no need for any further study as far as liability of the PP is concerned.
10. With regard to opinion now filed from a retired Professor, the same is hypothetical. It does not consider that persons present in the unit of the PP alone were affected and there is adequate material showing nexus of the toxic gas with the chemicals present in the unit of the PP. Thus, a mere hypothetical opinion cannot substitute admitted facts. Decision of the Tribunal is not based on suspicion as is being assumed without any basis.
Accordingly, we do not find any ground to modify order dated 18.01.2023 for excluding the liability of the PP.
12The M.As are disposed of accordingly.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM April 17, 2023 M.A. No. 21/2023, M.A. No. 22/2023 & M.A. No. 23/2023 IN Original Application No. 448/2022 AB 13