National Green Tribunal
Srinivasan K vs Reliable Polymers on 2 September, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.03:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 41 of 2019
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
K. Srinivasan ...Applicant(s)
Versus
Reliable Polymers,
Chennai and others.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 02.09.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Sri. K. Srinivasan (Party-in-person)
For Respondent(s): Sri. Elambarathi for R1
Sri. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena for R2 and
R3
Smt. P.T. Ramadevi through Sri. Raghul
Adhithya for R4 and R5
Sri. S.N. Parthasarathi through M/s. Girija for
R6
ORDER
1. As per order dated 16.12.2019, this Tribunal had constituted a joint committee to inspect the unit in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation 1 found and posted the case to 31.01.2020. On 31.01.2020, the matter was adjourned to 25.02.2020 by notification. On 25.02.2020, the matter was again adjourned to 26.03.2020 at the request of the members of the committee for submitting the report.
2. The matter was taken up on 26.03.2020. On 26.03.2020, the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2020 by notification. Since an interlocutory application was filed by the 1st respondent as I.A. No. 41 of 2020, the matter was advanced to 17.06.2020. On that day I.A. No. 41 of 2020 was considered but that was not disposed of, but adjourned to 15.07.2020 to the original date itself for consideration of the report which was expected to be filed by the joint committee.
3. On 15.07.2020, this Tribunal had considered the report submitted by the joint committee and directed the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board to submit a further report as to whether the recommendations made by the committee have been complied with by the 1st respondent or not, and if not what is the action taken and posted the case to today for completion of pleadings and also for consideration of further report.
2
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today through Video conference, Sri. K. Srinivasan, the applicant appeared in person. Sri. Elambarathi represented respondent no.1, Sri. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena represented respondents 2 and 3, Smt. P.T. Ramadevi through Sri. Raghul Adhithya represented respondents 4 and 5 and Sri. S.N. Parthasarathi through M/s. Girija represented respondent 6. Service is complete.
5. 1st respondent had filed their reply statement which was received by us through e-mail. The applicant who is appearing in person had submitted that the unit is still operating in spite of the order passed by this Tribunal. But, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that after the order passed by this Tribunal, the unit was not operating after 06.00 P.M. till they got permission from the local body modifying the time of operation beyond 06.00 P.M. and that has been obtained and by virtue of the same they are operating it.
6. However, we have directed the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board to inspect the unit and submit a report as to whether the recommendations given by the joint committee 3 have been complied with by the 1st respondent or not?
7. We have received a copy of the letter said to have been sent by the District Environmental Engineer to Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board to request this Tribunal to extend the time for submitting the report after conducting the necessary inspection as they could not conduct the inspection due to the present pandemic situation of Covid.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board also wanted two weeks time to submit the report as directed by this Tribunal after conducting the inspection.
9. Considering the present pandemic situation prevailing in the State and also the difficulties in movement, we feel that one more opportunity can be given to the Pollution Control Board to submit the report as directed on or before 7.10.2010.
10. It is also represented by the counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent that the name of the 1st respondent is Reliable Polymers. But in the order dated 15.07.2020 and 17.06.2020, the name of the 1st respondent was shown as Reliance Polymers. So, it is necessary to correct the same. 4
11. So, under such circumstances the submission made by the counsel for the 1st respondent is allowed and the name of the 1st respondent is directed to be corrected as Reliable Polymers in the order dated 17.06.2020 and 15.07.2020.
12. Office is directed to carry out the correction in the above orders and upload the corrected orders immediately.
13. In the meantime the 1st respondent is directed to serve the copy of the reply affidavit filed by them to the counsel appearing for the respondents and also the applicant who is appearing in person in the e-mail address shown and also by post.
14. The 1st respondent is also directed to make e-filing of the reply statement and produce the necessary hard copies before this Tribunal along with making e-filing of the reply affidavit.
15. For completion of pleadings and also for consideration of further report, post on 07.10.2020.
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) O.A. 41of 2019 02nd September 2020. Sr. ................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) 5 Corrected Copy Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 41 of 2019 (SZ) & I.A. No.41 of 2020 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF K. Srinivasan ...Applicant(s) Versus (*)Reliable Polymers, Chennai and others.
....Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 17.06.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s): M/s. K. Srinivasan (Party in person) For Respondent(s): M/s. Elambarathi for R1.
M/s. Abdul Saleem for R2, R3.
6 ORDER
1. The matter has been advanced today in view of the interlocutory application in I.A. 41of 2020 (SZ) filed by the applicant. We heard the matter through Video Conference, in the presence of Sri. Srinivasan applicant who appeared in person and Sri. Elambarathi counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri. Abdul Saleem and Sri. Saravanan appearing for respondent 2 and 3 and Sri. S.N.Parthasarathy represented through M/s. for Girija, 6 th respondent. We have disposed the I.A. No. 41 of 2020 by giving certain directions.
2. The committee is directed to consider the question as to whether the unit has functioned during night time after the order passed in the matter namely after 16.12.2019 and whether there was any violation of any pollution norms and if so what is the action to be taken for that purpose can also be considered by the committee which includes the imposition of environmental compensation and that can be incorporated in the report.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board submitted that inspection was conducted by the joint committee on 19.03.2020, but the allegation of violation is after that inspection. So, the committee is also directed to conduct further inspection if any, required on the basis of the allegation made in I.A. 7 No. 41 of 2020 and incorporate those things also in the report to be submitted.
4. The committee is directed to submit the report to this Tribunal on or before 15.07.2020 as the order was passed as early as on 16.12.2019 by e-mail or e-filing at [email protected]
5. The Registry is directed to communicate this order in I.A. No. 41 of 2020 to the applicant as well as the official respondents and the first respondent in the case for their information and further action if any to be taken.
6. For consideration of report post on 15.07.2020.
(*) Corrected as per order dated 02.09.2020.
..................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No. 41/2019 & I.A. No.41/2020, 17th June 2020. Sr. 8 Corrected Copy Item No.1:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI I.A. No. 41 of 2020 (SZ) in Original Application No. 41 of 2019 (SZ) IN THE MATTER OF K. Saravanan K. Flat F2, No.3 Achuthan Nagar, 1st Street, Ekkatuthangal, Gunidy, Chennai 600 032. ...Applicant(s) Versus
1. (*) Reliable Polymers, Represented by its Director/Proprietor D. Srinivsan No. 1, Achuthan Nagar, 1st Street, Ekkatuthangal, Gunidy Chennai 600 032.
2. The Chairman The Tami Nadu Pollution Control Board 76, Mount Salai, Gunidy, Chennai 600 032.
3. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board First Floor, 950/1, Poonamallee high road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.
4. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.
5. Zonal Officer, zone-13 (Adyar) Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 115, Dr. Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.9
6. District Collector, Chennai Fourth Floor Singavelar Maligai No.62, Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001.
...Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 17.06.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s): M/s. K. Srinivasan (Party in Person) For Respondent(s): M/s. Elambarathi for R1 M/s. Abdul Saleem for R2, R3.
ORDER I.A. No. 41 of 2020 (SZ):
1. The above application has been filed by the applicant who appears in person in the main matter, for an order restraining the 1 st respondent from operating their Plastic Manufacturing Unit during night time between 06:00 P.M. to 06:00 A.M.
2. It is alleged in the application that the corporation has already issued notice asking them to not operate during night time. Further, it is also alleged on account of operation of the same during night time, it 10 is likely to cause health hazards in the locality. So, he sought for the following reliefs:
(i) Direct the 2nd to 5th Respondent to take appropriate legal action to stop the 1st RESPONDENT PLASTIC UNIT permanently, which is being carried on without seeking consent and licence to operate in violation of environmental laws.
(ii) Pass any such other or further order as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In view of filing this interlocutory application the main case has been also advanced today, which was earlier posted to 15.07.2020 by notification.
4. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, the applicant, Sri. Srinivasan, appeared in person. Sri. Elambarathi represented 1st respondent and Sri. Abdul Saleem through Sri. Saravanan represented respondent 2 and 3 and Sri. Parthasarathy represented through M/s. Girija 6th respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that in view of the demand during COVID period, they have been compelled to operate beyond the time provided under the consent to operate and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that it is only a life saving instrument that is being manufactured on the 11 basis of the request made by the health authorities to meet the demand that has caused on account of the present pandemic situation. He also submitted that he will apply for extension of working hours and modification of the timings with the concerned authorities and till then he may be permitted to operate.
6. It may be mentioned here, if there is a condition in consent to operate that the particular unit will have to function in between the timings provided and if it not permitted to operate beyond 06:00 P.M., then the unit is not expected to operate the same during night time without getting further time extension of working hours from the concerned authorities.
7. So under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent not to operate the unit beyond the time permitted in the consent to operate beyond 06:00 P.M. till the timing has been changed or the working hours has been modified by the competent authority. If the 1st respondent is having permission to operate and the condition has been modified by the concerned authorities for the purpose of doing his operation during night time also, then this order will not prevent them from continuing with the operation but they are expected to maintain the pollution norms, if it is being operated during night time as permitted by the authorities. If the 1st respondent is not having permission from the concerned authorities to operate beyond 06:00 P.M. or during night time, then they are at liberty to apply to the 12 concerned authorities and if such application is filed, the authorities are at liberty to consider that application and pass appropriate orders with appropriate conditions, taking into account the conformity of the pollution norms to be followed by the unit without causing any disturbance to the residents of the locality, in accordance with law.
8. With the above directions and observations the application is disposed off.
(*) Corrected as per order dated 02.09.2020.
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) I.A. No.41/2020 in O.A. No. 41/2019 17th June 2020. Sr. 13 Corrected Copy Item No.12:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 41 of 2019 (SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF:
K. Srinivasan ...Applicant(s)
Versus
(*)Reliable Polymers,
Chennai and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 15.07.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER For Applicant(s): M/s. K. Srinivasan (Party in Person) For Respondent(s): M/s. Elambarathi for R1.
M/s. Abdul Saleem through M/s. Saravanan for R2, R3.
M/s. P.T. Remadevi through Sri. Raghul Aditya for R4, R5.
M/s. S.N. Parthasarathi through M/s. Girija for R6.14
ORDER
1. As per order dated 16.12.2019, this Tribunal had constituted a committee to consider the allegation in the application and action taken and submit a report and posted the case to 31.01.2020.
2. On 31.01.2020, the matter was adjourned to 25.02.2020 by notification. On 25.02.2020, it was adjourned to 26.03.2020 for report. On 26.03.2020, it was adjourned to today by notification.
3. On the basis of consideration of I.A. No.41 of 2020, this Tribunal advanced the hearing of the case to 17.06.2020 and posted the case to today for consideration of report.
4. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Sri. K. Srinivasan, applicant appeared in person, Sri. Elambarathi represented first respondent, Sri. Abdul Saleem through Saravanan represented respondents 2 & 3, Smt. P.T. Remadevi through Raghul Aditya represented respondents 4 & 5 and Sri. S.N. Parthasarathi through M/s. Girija represented sixth respondent
5. We have received a report of the joint committee which reads as follows:-15
"Joint Inspection of the Committee The Joint committee comprising the following representative of members has inspected the respondent unit of M/s Reliable Polymers, No.1 (Town Survey No.92/2 and 92/3), 1st Street, Achuthan Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Guindy Taluk, Chennai District on 19.03.2020 in the presence of Thiru Janardhan, Plant Head.
a) Sh. M. Malaiyandi, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai Zone.
b) Tmt. G. Vidhya, Assistant Engineer (Unit 40 - A), Zone 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
c) Sh. R. Gopalakrishnan, Tashildar, Guindy Taluk, Chennai.
During the time of inspection, the committee observed the following.
1) The respondent unit in operation and the following equipments have been installed and operation status of the machinery is furnished below:-
Sl. Machine Name and Equipment Operation No. No. Electrical Status Power rating 1 Injection Moulding 25 HP In operation Machine - 1 2 Injection Moulding 25 HP In operation Machine -2 3 Injection Moulding 20 HP In operation Machine -3 4 Injection Moulding 20 HP In operation Machine -4 5 Injection Moulding 15 HP In operation Machine -5 6 Injection Moulding 15 HP In operation Machine -6 7 Injection Moulding 60 HP Not in operation Machine -7 16
2) The respondent unit had manufactured 1) Nylon Injection moulding components at the rate of 200 Kg/Day and 2) Poly Propylene Injection moulding components at the rate of 200 Kg/Day, utilizing raw materials Nylon and Poly Propylene granules at the rate of 400 Kg/Day.
3) The respondent unit is functioning since 03.06.2016 on lease basis, the name of land owner is Thiru D. Sridhar and present occupier of the respondent unit is Thiru D. Srinivasan, Proprietor. It was reported that the respondent unit premises was previously (before 03.06.2016) occupied by the unit of M/s. Popular Forge (Madras Private Limited) which was an engineering unit & occupier of the respondent unit was Thiru. M. Karthikeyan, Director.
4) Total number of employees working in the respondent unit is 10 & the respondent unit generates 0.5 KLD of sewage which is directly disposed into Under Ground Drainage System (UGDS) provided by Greater Chennai Corporation.
5) There was not trade effluent generation & significant process emission from the respondent unit‟s manufacturing activities.
6) The respondent units is surrounded by road (1st Street, Achudan Nagar, Ekkattuthangal) in eastern direction, residents in western direction, applicant house in northern direction & commercial establishment in southern direction.
7) The respondent unit is partly located in mixed residential use zone and partly in industrial use zone as per the letter date 23.01.2020 furnished by the CMDA and hence location of the unit in respect of land use zone shall be considered as mixed residential use zone.
8) The respondent unit has obtained license under section 17 287 of CCMC Act, 1919 from the Greater Chennai Corporation vide dated 10.02.2020, which is valid upto 31.03.2020 in which allowed machinery horse power (HP) has not been mentioned.
9) The respondent unit has also obtained a fire service license under section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Fire Service Act, 1985 & with Tamil Nadu Fire Service Rules, 1919 Appendix III vide dated 31.12.2019 for one year.
10) The respondent unit has not yet obtained consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended.
11) It is respectively submitted that as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, published in February 2019 in residential use zone, industries listed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as „Green‟ Industries listed in Annexure - VI and subject to maximum installation of 30 HP are permitted. Also in industrial zone, all industries (without restrictions of HP or floor area or number of workers) except those industries listed under as Red category in Annexure of these regulations are permitted.
12) Based on the complaint petition received, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, District Environmental Laboratory, Manalai @ Arumbakkam has conducted the Noise level survey on 09.01.2020 in the respondent unit and the report of analysis is enclosed which reveals that the noise level (Leq) in all five locations during non operation of the respondent unit itself have exceeded the residential area noise level standard prescribed for day time in schedule of the "The Noise Pollution (Regulation & 18 Control) Rules, 2000" which is submitted below for kind reference please. Further, the noise levels in all five stations have marginally increased during operation of the unit.
SCHEDULE [See rule 3(1) and 4 (1)] Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise Area Category of Limits in dB (A) Leq* Code Area/Zone Day Time Night Time (A) Industrial area 75 70 (B) Commercial area 65 55 (C) Residential area 55 45 (D) Silence Zone 50 40 Note:
1) Day time shall mean from 06:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
2) Night time shall mean from 10:00 p.m. to 06:00 a.m.
3) Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational instructions and courts. The silence zones are zones which are declared as such by the competent authority.
4) Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned categories by the competent authority.
*dB (A) Leq denotes the time weighted average of the level of sound in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing.
(A) „decibel‟ is a unit in which noise is measured.
"A", in dB (A) Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponding to frequency response characteristics of the human ear. Leq: It is an energy mean of the noise level over a 19 specified period.
13) The joint committee has again inspected the respondent unit to ascertain the functioning of unit during night time as observed by the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal order dated 17.06.2020 and it was found that the unit was in operation. It was reported that the unit has obtained necessary permission to operate beyond 06:00 p.m. or during night time with appropriate condition to manufacture medical components /accessories to be used for life saving ventilators from Greater Chennai Corporation vide letter dated 24.06.2020.
Action Taken by TNPCB:
As the respondent unit has not obtained consent of the Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended and frequent complaints were received against the unit of M/s. Reliable Polymers, No.1, 1st Street, Achudan Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai, Show Cause Notices were issued to the respondent unit by District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai vide proceedings dated 08.08.2019.
Subsequently, the respondent unit has filed application for Consent of the Board under Water and Air Acts dated 19.12.2019, through online under Green category as the unit is non polluting industry as classified by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Finally, the application has been returned to the respondent unit on 17.06.2020, for want of the following additional details:
I. Clarification on land use classification of the unit. II. Greater Chennai Corporation running license including horse power permitted.
20 As the unit has applied for consent of the Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, the TNPCB has not initiated further action against the unit. Recommendation:
1. The respondent unit shall obtain and function only with the valid consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended.
2. The respondent unit shall function only with the valid running license issued under section 287 of CCMC Act, 1919 by the Greater Chennai Corporation.
3. The respondent unit shall install and operate the machinery of horse power allowed as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, in residential use zone."
6. The applicant who appeared in person submitted that the situation mentioned in the application still prevails in the locality causing disturbance.
7. Further, the recommendations show the unit shall obtain and function only with the valid consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, (ii) they shall function only with valid running license issued under Section 287 of Chennai City 21 Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 by Greater Chennai Corporation and (iii) they shall install and operate the machinery of horse power allowed as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 in residential zone.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent wanted time to file a detailed counter statement. It is also mentioned in the report that they have obtained permission beyond 06:00 P.M. during night time as well to manufacture medical components /accessories to be used for life saving ventilators from Greater Chennai Corporation by letter dated 24.06.2020.
9. According to the applicant, it is a silent zone but that was denied by the counsel for the first respondent.
10. Considering the circumstances, the Pollution Control Board is directed to submit a report as to what actionhas been taken on the basis of the recommendations made by the committee.
11. Pollution Control Board is also directed to submit a report as to whether those recommendations have been complied with by the first respondent and if not, what is the action taken.
12. For completion of pleadings and also for consideration of further report, post on 02.09.2020.
22
(*) Corrected as per order dated 02.09.2020.
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Shri. Saibal Dasgupta) O.A. No.41/2019, 15th July, 2020. Mn.
23