National Green Tribunal
Abhishek Chaurasia S/O Mr. Ramyadi ... vs Grasim Industries Limited Staple Fibre ... on 29 May, 2024
Item No. 01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.120/2024(CZ)
(I.A.No.56/2024)
Abhishek Chaurasia Applicant (s)
Vs
M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Respondent(s)
(Staple Fibre Division) & Ors.
AND
Original Application No.124/2024(CZ)
(I.A.No.58/2024)
Abhishek Chaurasia Applicant (s)
Vs
M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Respondent(s)
(Chemical Division) & Ors.
Date of Hearing: 29.05.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Abhishek Chaurasia
(Applicant in Person)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Adv.
(with Ms. Aayushi Khurana, Adv., &
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. &
Ms. Shtakshi Tripathi, Adv.)
Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Manish Nair, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Pintu Dass M/s Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd.
(Head of Site-HR)
ORDER
1. Common issues of law and fact have been raised in both the applications thus, are heard and taken together.
1
2. Issue raised in this application is violations of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 by respondent no.1, a unit named M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. at Birlagram Nagda, District, Ujjain (M.P.). The submission of the applicant is that the Respondent No. 01 operates with Highly Acidic and toxic elements like Sulfuric Acid, Carbon Di sulfide, Caustic Soda, Sulfur, HCL, Zinc, Chlorine, Sodium Sulphate etc and many more chemicals on a daily basis leading to indiscriminate pollution in the area. The industrial waste from the premises is discharged into an industrial drain which is interconnected to a tunnel came from the Respondent No. 01 premises located at Birlagram, Nagda. After installing ZLD in the Plant by Respondent No. 01 they are still releasing industrial waste water into the river Chambal throughout the drain (Nallah) connected to the industry premises. This drain meets the Chambal River at Juna Nagda. The Chemical used and manufactured in the industry is highly toxic and gives out a pungent smell which is unbearable for the residents living in and around Nagda town. The Respondent No. 01 is engaged in the manufacturing of Viscose on a large scale. Its various units are setup in a single complex surrounded by thickly populated colonies.
3. It is further submitted that the unit is covered under the hazardous chemical use and operating in violation of rules without taking proper precautions and discharging the chemical, untreated water into the nalla which is further discharging untreated water into the rivers which is used for drinkable water and bath and adversely affecting the human health.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent filed the objection with the facts that relief as sought in the application could only be entertained by way of filing appeal and this application filed under Section 14, 15 and of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 permits to seek relief on compensation, restitution of property, environment and that to on single cause of action and is not 2 maintainable. The applicant has sought to cancel or to hold the environmental clearance granted to Respondent no 1 and such relief could only have been sought by way of an appeal under section 16 (h) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is further submitted that this Tribunal in the matters of Sheikh Shakir vs. M/s Lanxess India Private Limited & Ors., O.A. No. 0112023 (vide order dated 11.01.2023) and Raza Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., MANU/GT/0200/2022 observed that the NGT Act does not provide for hybrid pleadings in form of Appeal-cum-Application. It was also observed that original applications which seek to challenge ECs are not maintainable. Accordingly, the instant Original Application which also seeks to challenge the EC granted to the Respondent No. 1 (thereby turning the instant application into a hybrid pleading) deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5. It is to be noted that the matter of the violation of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 against the industries was taken up by this Tribunal in O.A No. 02/2023 (CZ) titled Sheikh Shakir Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Chemical Division) and after calling a report from the CPCB/Committee it was decided finally on 08.12.2023 and issues raised in this application were raised and agitated, heard and decided vide order dated 08.12.2023 as quoted above. The relevant paragraph are quoted below: -
1. "In compliance of the order of this Tribunal the report of the joint committee (2nd report) is as follows :-
"A brief on the industrial cluster & norms The Nagda Industrial Cluster was developed prior to constitution of the State Pollution Control Boards way back in year 1954 and M/s Grasim Industries ltd (Chemical Division) Nagda was established in 1972. The State Pollution Control Board constituted 3 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 started grant of consent for disposal of treated waste water as per prevailing norms. However, as on date, none of the major industries discharging their effluent in river or land by maintaining the Zero Liquid Discharge status and M/s Grasim Industries (Chemical Division) Nagda is one of them.
It is noted that the unit was granted Environment Clearance for "Expansion of Caustic Chlorine Products from and value added derivatives along with installation of new Chloromethane plant by M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. (Chemical Division) at Birlagram, Nagda, District Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh)" vide letter dated 07.01.2020.The copy of the Environment Clearance is enclosed.
The unit has valid Consent upto 31.01.2024 under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981for the production of the same. The copy of the consent is enclosed.
Issues mentioned in petition and objection filed A. The present OA.No.02/2023 has been filed before the Hon'ble NGT by Sh. Shaikh Shakir. The main issues raised by applicants through the petition are as given below:
i. The unit is discharging untreated water on land and in river Chambal and adversely affecting the water body.
ii. The unit is involved in various chemical production and Durgapura and Mehatwas are located at just adjacent to the unit.
iii. The unit using various acidic elements i.e. Sulphur, mercury, Chlorine and HCl etc. leading to cause of pollution in the area.
iv. The unit using toxic chemicals resulting un-breathable atmosphere for residents of Nagda.4
v. The unit has not obtained the ground water extraction permission from CGWB.
vi. Other substantial issues i.e. ground water and soil contamination in area, health related problems of nearby population were also mentioned in the report.
B. Applicant has filed detailed objection dtd. 01.07.2023. The main issues raised are given as below:
i. The committee has not collected water samples from Kacchi Naali (industrial drain), Mehtwas, River Chambal at Bhagatpuri, Parmarkhedi, Bhimapura, Padliya Nala Nagda etc. ii. The Unit is dumping huge quantity of chemical waste near railway track and no water sampling carried out from nearby location.
iii. Various complaint made by the Hon‟ble Member of Parliament and local leader of political parties.
iv. A fire incident took place in Hydrogen tank and four workers seriously burnt.
The committee made the following observations during site visit on the above mentioned issues:-
Issue No. 01: The unit is discharging untreated water on land and in river Chambal and adversely affecting the water body.
M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. (Chemical Division) has installed 1000 KLD ETP to treat effluent of alkaline, acidic and neutral characteristics. The effluent quantity of about 320 m3/day is generated from the caustic soda plant after treatment which is being recycled and reused for various process and utility requirements.5
The effluent, clari-flocculated & clarified in flocculation & clarifier units respectively. The clarified effluent further treated through two-stage filtration system i.e., sand filter & activated carbon filter.
To reduce the TDS, industry has installed brackish water RO followed by Multi Effect evaporator (MEE) & Sea Water RO followed by Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD).
The condensate water recovered from MEE is reused in Process & cooling. Whereas dried powder sent to (TSDF) M/s Pithampur Industrial Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Pithampur District- Dhar a unit of Ramky.
Industry has maintained Zero Liquid Discharge status after installing double stage Reverse Osmosis (600KLD) Multi Effect Evaporator (MEE) (120KLD) & Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD) on 31.03.2018 and same has been intimated to MPPCB vide letter dated 02.04.2018 which is enclosed.
To treat the domestic waste, Activated Sludge Process based 02 STPs of total 80KLD capacity is installed. The treated effluent is used in horticulture & gardening.
Petitioner also mentioned about water pollution and claimed that the unit still discharging the untreated waste water in the drain but during visit no waste water discharge was observed in the main drain. To assess the present status of water quality samples of River Chambal up and down stream, ground water from nearby area, piezometer and drains have been collected and analyzed by MPPCB, Regional Laboratory at Ujjain. The samples were collected at representative locations on random basis so that they are uniformly distributed in the visited area. The results of water analysis are given below:
6 River Water Analysis S. Parameters Unit River River River River River No. Chambal at Chambal Chambal at Chambal 1 Chambal Bhagatpuri, 100 meter Parmarkhedi, K.M. D/s of at Nagda D/s at Nagda JunaNagda Upstream Juna of Nagda Nagda 1 Temperature Centigrade 24 23 23 25 26 2 Colour Pt. Co. Sc. Colourles Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless s 3 Odour -- Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless 4 pH pH 7.84 7.95 7.86 7.92 7.96 Units 5 Specific micro 485 403 393 401 391 Conductance mho/c m 6 Turbidity N.T.U. 13.2 11.9 15.8 25.2 11.2 7 Chloride as mg/l 62 54 58 61 55 Cl- 8 Total mg/l 190 188 196 196 192 Alkalinity as CaCo3 9 Total mg/l 184 192 208 220 176 Hardness as CaCo3 10 Calcium mg/l 120 100 128 140 110 Hardness as CaCo3 11 Magnesium mg/l 64 92 80 80 66 Hardness as CaCo3 12 Dissolved mg/l 6.8 6.8 7 6.8 7.1 Oxygen 13 Total Solids mg/l 356 298 334 310 290 14 Suspended mg/l 18 16 20 28 16 Solids 15 Total mg/l 338 282 314 282 274 Dissolved Solids 16 B.O.D. mg/l 3.6 7 6 8 1.8 (3 Days 270C) 17 Chemical mg/l 26 24 25 30 12 Oxygen Demand 18 Ammonical mg/l 0.986 0.698 0.864 1.32 0.1 Nitrogen as NH3-N 19 Nitrite as mg/l 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.002 -NO2 -N 20 Nitrate as mg/l 1.68 1.65 1.78 1.65 1.782 -NO3 -N 21 Phosphate as mg/l 0.067 0.052 0.077 0.062 0.121 3-_PO4 P 22 Sulphate as mg/l 40.55 32.4 32.83 49.77 16.5 2-SO4 7 23 Sodium as Na mg/l 30.2 30.4 32.4 33.2 11.2 24 Potassium mg/l 1 1 1.1 1 0.982 As K 25 Total MPN/ >1600 >1600 >1600 >1600 48 Coliform 100ml 26 Fecal MPN/ 12 33 34 33 1.8 Coliform 100ml 27 Boron as B mg/l 0.202 0.198 0.216 0.216 BDL 28 Fluoride mg/l 0.136 0.171 0.183 0.149 0.216 29 Copper mg/l ND ND ND ND ND (as Cu) 30 Lead (pb) mg/l ND ND ND ND 0.035 31 Zinc (as Zn) mg/l ND ND ND ND ND 32 Nickel (as Ni) mg/l 0.031 0.023 0.036 0.081 ND 33 Iron (as Fe) mg/l 0.039 0.101 0.088 0.133 0.041 34 Total mg/l 0.011 0.009 0.03 0.034 0.054 Chromium (as Cr) 35 Mercury mg/l ND ND ND ND ND (as Hg) Category D D D D A
Classification of River water based on IS - 2296 - 1982, ND- Not Detected BDL- Below Detectable Limit During inspection & sample collection it was observed that the Chambal River barrage near Railway Bridge was overflowing and sufficient flow at down stretch of river near Bhagatpuri, Parmarkhedi etc. Basis on the above analysis values of river Chambal it can be concluded that the BOD value increased in downstream of the river Chambalw.r.to upstream water quality due to mixing of city sewage and other non-industrial drains without any treatment.
It was observed that during visit two major drains (Nallah) joining the river Chambal at downstream side without any treatment i.e. Padliya drain and Mixed open drainof industrial area. Padliya drain mainly carrying city sewage and mix open drain carrying waste water generated from industrial area major source of inflow are vehicle washing, commercial activity etc. Mixed open drain nallah passes through School Bridge and finally met to Padliya nallah at JunaNagda. So sample has also been taken from School Bridge & Combined drain along with the drain behind Nagda industrial area. To assess the quality of waste water samples from major drains samples have been collected and the analysis results are given below:
8 Drain (Nallah) water analysis S. Parameters Unit Drain Mix Open Drain near Padliya Combined behind Drain at School Nallah near Drain D/C No. Nagda Inside Bridge, Indira Nagar, to industrial area, Birlagram, Nagda Chambal area. Nagda Nagda river on bypass road, Nagda 1 Appearance -- Turbid Turbid Turbid Turbid Turbid 2 Odour -- Unpleasant Unpleasant Unpleasant Unpleasant Unpleasant 3 pH pH 6.9 7.58 7.92 7.57 7.51 Units 4 Total Solids mg/l 2080 1286 2624 934 2204 5 Suspended mg/l 82 90 96 82 112 Solids 6 Total mg/l 1998 1196 2528 852 2092 Dissolved Solids 7 Chloride as mg/l 860 452 700 156 490 Cl- 8 B.O.D. ( 3 mg/l 6 12 18 38 20 Days 270C) 9 Chemica mg/l 90 70 90 90 80 l Oxygen Demand 10 Phosphate as mg/l 0.26 0.881 1.36 1.53 1.67 3-_ PO4 P 11 Mercury (as mg/l ND ND ND ND ND Hg)
ND- Not Detected , BDL- Below Detectable Limit The above drain water analytical results indicate that the value of BOD in Padiliya nallah are higher side w.r.to discharged standards however no Hg concentration is observed which a major concern. The drains are finally joining river Chambal at downstream side and increased the organic and inorganic load in river and after rainy season stagnation/lean flow further deteriorated the water quality.
The samples of ground water were also collected from representative village at locations mentioned in order dated 09.02.2023 and objection raised dated 01.07.2023 the location details and analyzed values are given below:9
Ground Water Analysis S. Parameters Unit Indian Standard Drinking Hand Bore well Handpump Hand pump No. Water Specification (Second Pump water at water near water near Revision) water at Durgapur, School Pardi IS 10500 : 2012 Mehatwas Nagda Takrawa, village, near Nagda Nagda Requirement Permissible in Paniki (Acceptable the Absence of Limit) Alternate Tanki, Source Birlagra, Nagda 1 Colour Pt.Co.Sc. 5 15 Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless 2 Odour -- Agreeable Agreeable Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless 3 pH pH Unit 6.5-8.5 No relaxation 7.84 7.35 7.1 7.23 4 Specific Conductivity µMhos/c -- -- 1024 1508 1468 2192 m.
5 Turbidity NTU 1 5 2.6 2.4 1.2 1.6 6 Total Solids mg/l -- -- 832 1218 1174 1766 7 Total Dissolved mg/l 500 2000 824 1206 1164 1756 Solids 8 Suspended Solids mg/l -- -- 8 12 10 10 9 Chloride as Cl mg/l 250 1000 192 300 264 440 10 Total Alkalinity as mg/l 200 600 304 242 762 552 CaCo3 11 Total Hardness as mg/l 200 600 490 464 560 872 CaCo3 12 Calcium as (Ca) mg/l 75 200 100 64 145.6 152 13 Magnesium as (Mg) mg/l 30 100 58.32 73.87 47.62 119.55 14 Ammonical Nitrogen mg/l 0.5 No relaxation BDL BDL BDL BDL as NH3-N 15 Nitrate as NO3 mg/l 45 No relaxation 7.88 30.23 1.84 36.74 16 Nitrite as NO2- -N mg/l -- -- BDL 0.002 BDL 0.002 17 Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 200 400 80.376 116.6 32.388 119.25 18 Phosphate as PO4--P mg/l -- -- BDL 0.14 0.022 0.004 19 Sodium as Na mg/l -- -- 66 92.5 183 133 20 Potassium as K mg/l -- -- 1.9 2.2 1.1 5.68 21 Chemical Oxygen mg/l -- -- 12 15 14 12 Demand 22 B.O.D. ( 3 Days 270 mg/l -- -- 1.2 1.6 1.4 1 C) 23 Fluoride (as F) mg/l 1 1.5 0.689 0.98 0.96 0.889 24 Copper (as Cu) mg/l 0.05 1.5 0.021 ND ND ND 25 Lead (as Pb) mg/l 0.01 No relaxation ND 0.005 ND ND 26 Zinc (as Zn) mg/l 5 15 ND 0.459 ND 0.007 27 Nickel (as Ni) mg/l 0.02 No relaxation 0.011 0.018 0.013 ND 28 Iron (as Fe) mg/l 0.3 No relaxation 0.039 0.052 0.214 0.139 29 Total Chromium (as mg/l 0.05 No relaxation 0.011 0.035 0.032 0.032 Cr) 30 Mercury (as Hg) mg/l 0.001 No relaxation ND ND ND ND ND- Not Detected , , BDL- Below Detectable Limit The Unit has also installed piezometers in North & South direction of plant, along with other prominent locations to assess any leakage from SLF. The samples of piezometer were also collected from representative locations of up and down gradient in the presence of applicant. The location details and analyzed values are given below:10
Piezometric Point Analysis S. No. Parameters Unit Piezometric Piezometric Piezometric Point near Point No. - 3, Point no. 6 Weigh Bridge near Bottling at Grasim at Pardi Gate Plant, Nagda Staff at U/S of SLF Colony, Site of M/S Nagda Grasim Ind.
Ltd. (Chemical Division), Birlagram, Nagda 1 Colour Pt.Co.Sc. Colourless Colourless Colourless 2 Odour -- Odourless Odourless Odourless 3 pH pH Units 7.11 8.07 7.51 4 Specific Conductance micromho/ 519 590 1192 cm 5 Turbidity N.T.U. 5.6 4.1 7.3 6 Chloride as Cl- mg/l 110 128 602 7 Total Alkalinity as CaCo3 mg/l 194 176 226 8 Total Hardness as CaCo3 mg/l 220 232 232 9 Calcium Hardness as CaCo3 mg/l 120 120 96 10 Magnesium Hardness as mg/l 100 112 136 CaCo3 11 Total Solids mg/l 428 484 964 12 Suspended Solids mg/l 10 12 10 13 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 418 472 954 14 Copper (as Cu) mg/l ND ND ND 15 Lead (as Pb) mg/l ND 0.014 ND 16 Zinc (as Zn) mg/l ND 0.021 0.074 17 Nickel (as Ni) mg/l ND 0.148 ND 18 Iron (as Fe) mg/l 0.015 0.222 0.124 19 Total Chromium (as Cr) mg/l ND 0.05 0.059 20 Mercury (as Hg) mg/l ND ND ND ND- Not Detected On the basis of the analysis results of the ground water and piezometers, it can be concluded that none of the parameter is showing abnormal value. Mercury (Hg) is also not observed in any ground water sample.
The unit has maintained Zero Liquid Discharge condition. At the time of visit, it is found that MEE and ATFD were operational. The unit has also installed 02 PTZ cameras at ETP area and back side of the unit. The access of the camera is with MPPCB, Bhopal to monitor the status remotely at round the clock basis.
11 It was observed that a stone crusher located at the backside of the industrial area at Takrawada village rain water was found accumulated in the mined pit. However, no waste water discharge was observed in this area.
The Unit has also installed two STP of capacity 50 KLD each for the treatment of domestic waste water. On average basis 25 to 30 KLD water is being treated by these STPs which is further used for horticulture, dust suppuration etc. The samples of STPs were collected during inspection water analysis report is as under:
STP water analysis S. Parameters Unit M/s Grasim M/s Grasim Chemical Chemical Division Division Nagda, STP No. Nagda, STP no. - 1, no.- 2, Capacity 50 Capacity 50 KLD KLD (Treated Water (Treated Water reuse in Garden) reuse in Garden) 1 Appearance -- Sl. Turbid Sl. Turbid 2 Odour -- Unpleasa Unpleasa nt nt 3 pH pH Units 7.48 7.43 4 Total Solids mg/l 986 1104 5 Suspended Solids mg/l 38 40
6 Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 948 1064 7 Chloride as Cl- mg/l 190 198 8 B.O.D.( 3 Days 270C) mg/l 8 12 9 Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 40 60 10 Phosphate as PO 3-_P mg/l 0.713 0.924 4 Issue No 02-The unit is involved in various chemical production and Durgapura and Meahtwas is located to just adjacent to the unit.
12
As mentioned above the unit involved in production of various chemicals and having valid consent from MPPCB and permission from petroleum and explosion safety organisation (PESO) for storage and handling of Chlorine which is valid upto 30.09.2032. The permission of PESO is enclosed.
The one of the main contentions of the petition is location of Mehtwas village which is located in close proximity of the industrial cluster. Generally minimum buffer zone is 500 meters has been fixed but in present case village is located near to Nagda industrial cluster. The other houses and villages also located within the range of 200 to 500 meter distance from this cluster. As per industry representative the plant was established in 1972 and at that time, population was very less and at that time no concept of buffer zone was existed. However, to control emission from stack the unit has provided scrubbers attached with stack. The details of the installed air pollution control devices are as tabulated below:
S.No. Unit APCDs & Stack height (mtrs)
1. Caustic Soda Unit_1 Alkali Scrubber (32m)
Water Scrubber (34m)
2. Caustic Soda Unit_2 Alkali Scrubber (34m)
Water Scrubber (34m)
3. Calcium Chloride Water Scrubber (34m)
4. Chlorinated Paraffin Unit Alkali scrubber (30m)
Water Scrubber (30m)
5. Chlosulphonic Acid plant H2SO4 scrubber (30m)
Water scrubber (30m)
6. Poly Aluminum Chloride Plant Water Scrubber (34m)
Spray Dryer Scrubber (34m)
7. Stable bleaching powder Plant Bag Filter, Cyclone, Dust
Collector, Gravity Settling
Chamber, Hood Cover
Industry has provided CEMS in Caustic soda unit 1 & 2 and Chlorinated paraffin units stacks for continuous monitoring of HCl & Cl2. Total 88 sensors for Cl2&HCl leak detection are installed in plant premises during visit some of them has been verified at random basis. The location details of the installed sensors are enclosed. 13 Issue No. 03 - The unit is using various acidic elements i.e. Sulphur, mercury, Chlorine and HCl etc. causing pollution in the area.
The unit is involved mainly in the production of Chlorine based product. The representative of the unit informed that sulphur and Mercury is nowhere used in the process. The unit produces caustic soda through membrane technology which is safer production method as compared to earlier method i.e. Mercury cell. The unit has switchover the mercury cell to membrane technology in 2006 the intimation letter issued in this regard is enclosed.
The stack emission is point source of air pollution in any chemical industry. In this unit the main stacks are Caustic soda unit 01 and unit 02at the time of visit both were operational hence stack emission has been monitored for consented parameters i.e. HCl and Cl. The details of the monitored stack emission values are given below:
Stack Chlorine
S. emission Control HCl (mg/Nm3) CEMS provided
No. monitoring equipmen
t (mg/Nm3)
location
01 Caustic Soda Alkali and 2.73 1.731 The unit has
unit- 01 Water installed the
Scrubber OCEMS and the
data shows that
02 Caustic Soda Scrubber 2.83 0.98 during the emission
unit- 02 monitoring all
Emission standards 35 15 values within the
limit as given in
consent.
On the basis of the above stack emission monitoring data, it was observed that the emission values complying the norms.
As per the guideline of CPCB, the unit has installed OCEMS in all the stacks of chemical plant to monitor HCl and Chlorine emission round the clock. The CEMS data available at MPPCB/CPCB website and transmission was verified during visit. As per the OCEMS data all the stack emission of HCl & Chlorine was well within the consented limits i.e. 35mg/Nm3 & 15mg/Nm3 respectively.
14
As mentioned in above para, the unit has switchover the mercury cell to membrane technology and as on date no Mercury is being used in process. The unit has constructed new SLF which has Double Composite Liner System and designed as per the CPCB guideline, 2001. Bottom is lined with compacted clay, HDPE liners & leachate collection system. After the switchover the production technology from Mercury to membrane the characteristic of sludge also changed in result.
As per the direction of MPPCB a study on "Environmental Assessment For Evaluating The Strength Of Abandoned Secured Landfill Site Of M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Nagda, Madhya Pradesh" was carried out by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Hyderabad Zonal Centre. The report concludes as:
"Possibility of leaching of metals including mercury from the mercury bearing sludge and ash layers from the secured landfill is minimal. Two locations, one each in upstream and downstream of secured land fill site were identified for drilling borewells and groundwater samples were collected from various depths at each location in order to assess the strength of the SLF. Mercury levels in the groundwater, collected from drilled sites, were below detectable levels. The groundwater quality of the monitored locations in the path of groundwater flow from SLF indicates that mercury was below detectable level. Furthermore, the new drilled borewells also did not show mercury levels in the groundwater. Based on the TCLP analysis of mercury bearing sludge and the groundwater quality, no leaching of mercury from the SLF was observed. This indicates that the SLF has the capacity of not allowing the chemicals from sludge to the groundwater and the SLF site is intact.
The present study revealed that the mercury sludge in SLF is stabilized and there is no considerable evidence for leaching of mercury from SLF. Geologically, the study area is comprised of Basalts rocks and has no permeability. However, the groundwater as well as soil quality 15 surrounding the SLF site need to be monitored on annual basis."
The conclusion part of the report is enclosed.
Issue No 04-The unit using toxic chemicals resulting un- breathable atmosphere for residents of Nagda.
As mentioned in the above paragraph the unit is involved in the production of Chlorine based derivatives and to detect any fugitive emission proper sensor has been installed at prominent locations. The unit has provided proper scrubber system to control emissions. The unit has also provided all the stacks above 30 meter from ground for proper dispersion of pollutant.
In this industrial cluster, 03 numbers of Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring System (CAAQMS) are established at following locations to monitor ambient air concentration of PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, HCl, Cl etc.
1. Guest House No.2
2. Temple Guest House &
3. Chemical division Labor Club The CAAQMS data of the 01.08.2023 to 25.08.2023were collected. It was observed that the CAAQMS data showing that the air quality data are within the NAAQM standards. The data sheet of CAAQMS is enclosed.
Issue No. 05-The unit has not obtained the ground water extraction permission from CGWB.
As informed by the unit representative the unit does not have any borewell for extraction of ground water and all the water requirement is being fulfilled through Chambal river water and recycled water. The unit also reduced its water requirement after reuse of treated water of ETP and condensate. The unit consumes about 2600 KLD water in production about 650 KLD water is being recycled. The unit also intimated to CGWA, Bhopal on 06.10.2021 16 regarding no requirement of NOC as unit not extracting ground water. The letter is enclosed. The agreement of MPWRD and M/s Grasim industries is enclosed.
Issue No. 06 - Other substantial issues i.e. health related problems of nearby population, ground water and soil contamination in area and odour related issues were also mentioned in the report.
In compliance of the direction issued by MPPCB at time to time the unit has carried out various studies from central government institutes i.e. NEERI, NIREH to assess the environmental status of the area. The said studies covered all the aspects of health and environment as mentioned in the petition and implementations of the recommendations are under progress or completed. The main studies carried out in recent years are given below:
Brief about Health study by ICMR-NIREH Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued direction on 19th February 2020 under section 18 (1) (b) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB). One of the specified direction states as:
"xiv. A detailed health study of Nagda region to be carried out in light of synergistic health effects of pollutant by engaging any reputed government institute working in the field of research in environmental health by MPPCB."
In compliance of the above direction MPPCB has issued direction under section 33/A of water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 to occupiers of the industries of Nagda including M/s Grasim Industries (Chemical Division) on 13th May 2020. In compliance of the above, occupiers viz. M/s Grasim Staple Fibre Division, M/s Grasim Chemical Division & M/s Lanxess (I) Pvt Ltd, combindly awarded a health study to Indian Council Of Medical Research - National Institute For Research In Environmental Health (ICMR-NIREH), Bhopal (M.P.). The Terms of Reference (TOR) were 17 finalized after due discussion among concern authority viz. CPCB, CGWB, MPPCB, Municipal Authority and occupiers. The final report was submitted by occupiers on 13th July 2022. The main recommendation of study as below:
Recommendations of the Study:
1. Even though a majority of surveyed population was found to be healthy the proportion of participants who were found to have abnormal findings in health assessments should be subjected to detailed investigation especially because the tests used in this study were meant for screening purposes.
2. Many of the health data obtained as part of this cross-sectional studies such as blood pressure, spirometry and ECG reflects the need for further in-depth health evaluation of the community, especially keeping in mind the limitation of cross-sectional studies such as one time measurement, lack of populations exposure to such tests resulting in inadequate performance in effort dependent tests and residual confounding effects.
3. In the present study, majority of the participants showed normal neuro-behavioral functions further investigations are recommended for the establishment of the neuro-behavioral diagnosis if any in screening positive participant in this study.
4. The abnormal lipid profile seen in multiple participants highlights the need for advocating for lifestyle modification in the community such an increasing physical activity, healthier diet including consumption of good quality fat.
5. One time measurement of gaseous pollutants may not reflect the dose-response relationship. Considering the known detrimental health effects of the gaseous pollutants their periodic or seasonal monitoring is recommended.18
6. It is recommended to have a mechanism for periodic monitoring of ambient air pollutant concentration in the vicinity of the industrial region.
7. It is recommended to have periodic monitoring for detection of groundwater contamination by heavy metals at early stage and to prevent adverse health effects if any from the consumption of contaminated groundwater.
Brief about Ground Water study by CSIR-NEERI CSIR-NEERI, Hyderabad Zonal Centre has previously conducted groundwater quality assessment studies in and around Chemical Division, Grasim Industries Limited (GIL), Nagda during November-December 2017. Based on the recommendations of CSIR-NEERI, M/s GIL approached CSIR- NEERI to undertake a detailed study to assess the groundwater quality and identify the pollution source over a period of 4 hydrological cycles, this study started in 2018. Accordingly, to assess the groundwater quality over a period of 4 hydrological cycles and to identify the pollution source through integrated geophysical, stable isotopic and groundwater modelling studies is going on and based on the final recommendation further action will be taken.
This study started in 2018 in the buffer zone of 5 km surrounding the Chemical Division, Grasim Industry. The study is to be completed in 2024.
Brief about Environmental audit carried out by CSIR- NEERI As per the direction of MPPCB, a study on "Environmental Audit of the Secured Landfill Site of Chemical Division Grasim Industries Ltd, Nagda, Madhya Pradesh" was carried out by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, 19 Hyderabad Zonal Centrein 5 Km radius of the SLF and completed in June 2021. The report concluded mainly that- The heavy metal concentrations in the soils are below the screening level for Industrial area as per MoEF&CC Guidelines for contaminated sites in India.
The heavy metals are below TCLP concentration Limit as per Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
The present study revealed that the mercury sludge in SLF is stabilized and there is no considerable evidence for leaching of mercury from SLF. Geologically, the study area is comprised of Basalts rocks and have no permeability. However, the groundwater as well as soil quality surrounding the SLF site need to studied at least once in a year.
Brief about Monitoring of odour and odours compound A study on "Monitoring of odour and odourous compounds at Grasim industries Ltd (Chemical Division)" was carried out by J.M. Environet Pvt. Ltd Gurugram and completed in January 2020. The conclusion part of the report enclosed. Issues raised through objection dated 01.07.2023 The main issues raised by the applicants through objection filed on01.07.2023 are as given below:
Objection-01: The committee has not collected water samples from Kacchi Naali (industrial drain), Mehtwas, River Chambal at Bhagatpuri, Parmarkhedi, Bhimapura, Padliya Nala Nagda etc. Reply: At the time of previous inspection committee visited the periphery of the industrial unit including back side of the unit at that time no waste water was found discharged from any industrial unit hence waste water sampleswere not collected, however samples from Mehtwas and Padliyanala were collected at that time 20 During the visit on 23.08.2023, same site was visited with applicant and it was observed that due to rain, water was flowing in that drain hence sample has been collected. Objection-02 The Unit is dumping huge quantity of chemical waste near railway track and no water sampling carried out from nearby location.
Reply: The brine sludge is being generated during production of Caustic for storage of the same the unit has constructed SLF which has Double Composite Liner System and designed as per the CPCB guideline, 2001.
The unit has obtained permission from MPPCB on 26.09.2022 for construction of new captive secured landfill site
-II with the capacity of 45000 MT and this site is located near railway track. During visit construction work is under progress.
No unscientific dumping of chemical sludge was observed. The old and new secured landfill sites are located in nearby area and to monitor the ground water quality samples has been collected from piezometer in the presence of applicant. However, during previous visit of the committee, sampling was done from the same locations.
Objection-03 Various complaint made by the Honble Member of Parliament and local leader of political parties. Reply: During the inspection and interaction with the officials, it has come to the knowledge that the similar types of complaints were received in various time intervals. The local administration and MPPCB already doing work on the same issues as mentioned in the petition. Some importantcomplaints received and its action taken as given below :
1. Sh. Anil Firojiya Hon'ble MP of Ujjain raised an issue of water pollution caused by Grasim group of industries and other industries of Nagda town in December 2019. In 21 compliance of that a joint team of CPCB, Delhi and Regional Directorate, Bhopal visited the area further CPCB, Delhi issued a direction to MPPCB under section of 18(1) b of the Water (prevention & control of pollution) Act, 1974. In compliance of that MPPCB issued a notice to Units located in Nagda area including M/s Grasim Chemical Division on 13.5.2020. The copy of notice and work completed by the Unit enclose.
2. Sh. Bhuvneshwar Kalita and Sh. Jawahar Sirkar Hon'ble MP of Rajya Sabha forwarded a complaint letter related to the wastewater discharged by the Grasim group of industries and other industries of Nagda town in December 2022. The Regional Directorate of CPCB Bhopal investigated the matter thoroughly in November 2022 along with the complainant. The visiting team also interacted with other complainants of Nagda who sent their complaints at various time intervals. After inspection a letter has been issued to MPPCB on 09.01.2023 for further improvement by CPCB, Delhi.
3. With reference to public complaints of Nagda area Collector Ujjain constituted a team of six departments i.e. Health, agriculture, ground water board, labour department, SPCB, CPCB and district administration for thorough investigation of the area above committee visited the area in January 2020 and based on the inspection, instruction for further improvement has been given to unit.
Objection-04 A fire incident took place in Hydrogen tank and four workers seriously burnet.
Reply: The Fire incident took place on 23-03-2023 at 12 noon during yearly shutdown of MC-2 Plant due to heat up the bolts while using a Gas cutting torch. Due to heating of the bolts a flash fire with explosion occurred by entrapped hydrogen. 22 In this incident one supervisor & 3 labours were affected. After first aid at Janseva Hospital Nagda one labour was discharged while other 3 person shifted to Choithram Hospital, Indore (Burn Speciality Hospital). After treatment at Choithram Hospital, Indore one person discharged on dated 31-03-2023 & remaining two people were discharge on 05-04-2023. The fitness certificates of three employeesare enclosed. Action Taken so far for improvement of environmental condition in Nagda Chambal river stretch from Nagda to Rampura declared as polluted river stretch based on the increased level of BOD level based on monthly water quality monitoring data. In compliance of the Hon‟ble NGT order in O.A. 673/2018, action plans for polluted river stretches was prepared and its execution is under progress. Measures taken by different government agencies to improve the water quality in Chambal River are as below:
1. The Municipal council of Nagda has prepared DPR for the sewerage line & treatment of domestic waste water generated from Nagda Town. The project is under consideration in M.P. Urban Development Company Bhopal (MPUDC). The letter given by the Nagda Municipal Corporation regarding latest status is enclosed.
2. PHED & the M.P. Jal Nigam Maryadith Periyogna scheme of Rs 29.29 Crore is already in implementation to supply potable water in affected village along the bank of Chambal River.
3. Industries like M/s Grasim Industries Ltd (Chemical Division), M/s Lanxess India Pvt Ltd and M/s Grasim Industries Ltd (SFD) Nagda have achieved zero liquid discharge.
23
Conclusion:
On the basis of the present inspection, it was observed that the unit has been maintaining Zero Liquid Discharge status by installation of MEE and ATFD since 2018 and no waste water found discharged during visit which is the main contention of the petition.
To control the emission from the stacks the unit has provided scrubbers. The manual monitoring values as well as CEMS data has been found within the limits given in consent.
The unit has installed CEMS system to monitor emission on real time basis and also installed PTZ cameras at two locations to observe live activity remotely and all data transmitted on MPPCB portal.
It is pertinent to mention that the district administration and MPPCB have already taken up the issues mentioned in the petition and various studies related to ground water, health, soil contamination and odour has been completed by central institutes very recently and execution work on the recommendation of studies are going on. The unit also informed that the recommendations/ suggestions made in the reports/studies are being implemented.
6. It is further argued on behalf of respondent that the matter was agitated and raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Annexure R-3), which is grievance communication details and no actions was taken since contents of the plaint were not covered under PIL guidelines. The contention of the respondent are that the complainant is regularly making allegations and application before the appropriate forum and PIL was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was not entertained. In addition to that it is argued that the complainant is propagating this petition filed before 24 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in newspaper where it has been mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken cognizance of the matter and thus pressurising the Project Proponent.
7. During the course of hearing the Learned Counsel for the applicant has filed an application opposing the objection raised by the Respondent no. 1 against the maintainability of the Original Application with the facts that environmental clearance/EC by MoEF &CC for the extension was taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 015837 OF 2019 and argued as pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondents are that the matter with regard to the cancellation of EC or validity of the EC or extension of the EC or expansion are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and same cannot be raised and agitated before this Tribunal.
9. On the point of limitation the respondent have raised their preliminary objections on the question of maintainability of the application on limitation and jurisdiction. They have raised all the contentions as narrated above.
Speaking on the jurisdiction powers and proceedings of the Tribunal, Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes. - (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified on Schedule-I. (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.
25 (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the application was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent have further relied on the decision taken by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 01/2023 (CZ) titled as Raza Ahmad VS State of Chhatitisgarh, the relevant portions are quoted below : -
25. As in any civil case, to initiate proceedings and to seek relief before the Tribunal, as envisaged under the provisions of NGT Act, one should have the cause of action which consisting of bundle of facts which gives the affected party a right to claim relief. The expression generally means the situation or a set of acts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal.
e) Black's Law Dictionary defines Cause of Action as : "Cause of action is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. 26
f) In "Words and Phrases", the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf.
g) As per Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition) "Cause of action" has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. "Cause of action"
has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action.
h) It is judicially settled that the cause of action, in the restricted sense, means forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action and in the wider sense, the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceedings not only the alleged infraction but also the infractions coupled with the right itself.
27
26. It would be apt and appropriate to reproduce the following observation made by the Principal Bench, NGT, New Delhi in Appeal No.01 of 2013 Ms. Medha Patkar & Others Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Union of India & Others on the point of limitation :
"The Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and practical approach that would also be in consonance with the provisions of the Act providing limitation. Firstly, the limitation would never begin to run and no act would determine when such limitation would stop running as any one of the stakeholders may not satisfy or comply with all its obligations prescribed under the Act. To conclude that it is only when all the stakeholders had completed in entirety their respective obligations under the respective provisions, read with the notification of 2006, then alone the period of limitation shall begin to run, would be an interpretation which will frustrate the very object of the Act and would also cause serious prejudice to all concerned. Firstly, the completely frustrates the purpose of prescription of limitation. Secondly, a project proponent who has obtained environmental clearance and thereafter spent crores of rupees on establishment and operation of the project, would be exposed to uncertainty, dander of unnecessary litigation and even the possibility of jeopardizing the interest of his project after years have lapsed. This cannot be the intent of law. The framers of law have enacted the provisions of limitation with a clear intention of specifying the period within which an 28 aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is a settled rule of law that once the law provides for limitation, then it must operate meaningfully and with its rigour. Equally true is that once the period of limitation starts running, then it does not stop. An applicant may be entitled to condonation or exclusion of period of limitation. Discharge of one set of obligations in its entirety by any stakeholder would trigger the period of limitation which then would not stop running and equally cannot be frustrated by mere non- compliance of its obligation to communicate or place the order in public domain by another stakeholder. The purpose of providing a limitation is not only to fix the time within which a party must approach the Tribunal but is also intended to bring finality to the orders passed on one hand and preventing endless litigation on the other. Thus both these purposes can be achieved by a proper interpretation of these provisions. A communication will be complete once the order granting environmental clearance is place in public domain by all the modes referred to by all or any of the stakeholders. The legislature in its wisdom has, under the provisions of the Act or in the notification of 2006, not provided any other indicator or language that could be the precept for the Tribunal to take any other view.
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of 29 public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and /or publicity -seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, the Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs.
43. The concept of public interest litigation was discussed in depth by the Hon'ble Apex Court by holding that a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation which is a camouflage to foster the personal disputes is to be thrown out. It was Hon'ble Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ in Holicow Pictures Private Limited v. Premchandra Mishra and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/8219/2007 : (2007) 14 SCC 281 the observation was made as follows:
30
"10. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) 98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.
15. The court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.
The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.
The court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono 31 public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p. 219, para 24)
24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.
i. According to the respondents, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to condone the delay in view of the language of Section 16 of the NGT Act, which reads as under:
"16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction - Any person aggrieved by-
********* h. an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
********* may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the 32 appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
i. From language of the above provision it is clear that the Tribunal loses jurisdiction to condone the delay if the delay is of more than 90 days. Every appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. That is, what an applicant is required to ensure before the appeal is heard on merits. However, the Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which is filed after 30 days from the date of communication of an order. This power to condone the delay has a clear inbuilt limitation as it ceases to exist if the appeal is filed in excess of 60 days, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of communication of such order. To put it simply, once the period of 90 days lapses from the date of communication of the order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The language of the provision is clear and explicit. It admits of no ambiguity and the legislative intent that Tribunal should not and cannot condone the delay in excess of 90 days in all, is clear from the plain language of the provision.
ii. Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, provides for prescribed period of thirty (30) day for filing of the Appeal. The proviso appended to Section 16, however, gives discretion to the Tribunal, that if it is satisfied "that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause" from filing the Appeal, within the said period, it may allow (the Appeal) to be filed under this Section within a further period not exceeding sixty (60) days. Thus, limitation period can be extended only up to period of sixty (60) days only, if it is demonstrated by the Appellant that there was cause for him, which prevented him from filing of the Appeal, within initial prescribed period of limitation. In Sunil Kumar Samanta, M/s. 33 Samanta Engineering Workds, 1, B.T. Road, Barrackpore, North 24- Parganas v. West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors. (2014 India NGT Reporter (Part 3) 250), the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal, elaborately considered the relevant proviso of Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. The Hon'ble Principal Bench also considered analogues provisions of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Principal Bench, held that:
"33. Normally, the statutory period of limitation provided in a provision like under the NGT Act, is un- extendable by recourse to provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While applying the provisions of limitation, besides applying the rule of strict construction, the Tribunal has to keep a balance between rival rights of the parties; appellant who has lost his right or whose remedy is barred by time and other to whom a benefit has accrued as a result of loss of right of the first. At this stage, it may be appropriate to make reference to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others [JT 2013 (12) SC 450), where the Court was primarily concerned with the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Court adverted itself towards the respective rights and obligations of the parties and held as under:
"26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on 34 the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result ofthe failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play."
iii. There is no provision in the Act to file one appeal against several available orders. The relief as sought by the appellant contains more than one appealable order and appellant had right to file an appeal separately before the competent forum but, he adopted to file PIL. This takes us to the question of maintainability of the Application in a composite form, which he says is dual- Appeal- cum-Application, filed in view of availability of plural remedies, in accordance with Rule 14 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011. We shall deal with his contention, in order to set right the issue once for all, inasmuch as it is likely to 35 be raised in many such cases, on similar ground. Rule 14 of the NGT (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011, reads as follows:
"Rule 14. Plural remedies- An application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief provided that they are consequential to one another."
iv. Perusal of Rule 14, without any pre-judicial notions in the mind, will make it amply clear that any Application or Appeal, as the opening words imply are distinct remedies under which the particular relief may be sought on single cause of action. Thus, if properly read, the Rule provides as follows:
i. There may be either single Application or Appeal. In otherwords, it cannot be a comprehensive or hybrid type of pleadings like Appeal-cum-Application, as captioned by the Appellant-cum-Applicant, as in the present Application/Appeals.
ii. The Appeal or Application, whatsoever it may, be must be filed on single cause of action. Thus, it cannot be filed on several causes of action. In other words, an Appeal cannot be filed with combined causes challenging different ECs or orders, nor an Application can be filed challenging different orders or different violations under the different Laws.
iii. Still, however, choice given to the Appellant/Applicant is to ask for grant of more than one relief in case such reliefs, are of consequential character. Inother words, if a relief depends upon grant of another relief, then grant of more than one relief is permissible.
36 For example; in case EC for grant of a project is challenged on the ground that there is no permission from CRZ Authority to the construction carried out, then consequential relief to demolish illegal construction carried out, without CRZ Authority's permission, which falls withinCRZ area/NDZ area."
v. We cannot overlook and brush aside main provisions of the NGT Act, which do not provide for any kind of permission to allow filing of two (2) Appeals, one against time barred EC, coupled with another EC for revised plan along with an Application under Sections 14,15 and 18 of the NGT Act, 2010. vi. Once we examine the provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act in the light of the above principle, it is clear that the provision is neither ambiguous nor indefinite. The expressions used by the legislature are clear and convey the legislative intent. The communication of an order granting the Environmental Clearance has to be made by the MoEF as well as the Project Proponent in adherence to law. The communication would be complete when it is undisputedly put in the public domain by the recognised modes, in accordance with the said provision. The limitation of 30 days would commence from that date. If the appeal is presented beyond the period of 30 days, in that event, it becomes obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause explaining the delay. The delay must be bona fide and not a result of negligence or intentional inaction or mala fide and must not result in the abuse of process of law. Once these ingredients are satisfied the Tribunal shall adopt a balanced approach in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case.
"36. Trite law it is that the special law of limitation in any given enactment will always exclude the general law of limitation. The NGT Act, 2010, a special enactment 37 specifically provides a period of limitation under section 14(2) and 15(3). The Principal Bench, NGT has already held in Jesurathinam v. MoEF, Union of India reported in 2012 (2) FLT 811 NGT that when a specific provision for limitation is provided under the special statute, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are inapplicable. Hence, the Tribunal is afraid whether the theory of continuing cause of action can be made applicable to the present factual position of the case for which the specific period of limitation is available under the NGT Act, 2010."
vii. The rule 14 of the NGT, Rules 2011 reads as follows:
"14. Plural remedies.-An application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief provided that they are consequential to one another".
11. It is further submitted that for challenging the EC the application is not maintainable in view of the Nikhil Developers vs. State of Maharashtra M.A. no. 347/2012 arising out of Appeal No. 76/2012 decided on 14.03.2013.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondent have further submitted that an application is totally sketchy and superficial and the point of limitation is also applicable here and virtually no explanation as to why the matter was not taken up with due earnest reasonably and expeditiously, has not been properly explained. There are no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, MANU/SC/0460/1987 : 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when 38 substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
13. In the matters where action is brought by Government or statutory authority, no person is individually affected and in ultimate analysis it is the public interest which suffers. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional and do not share the characteristic of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation though is equal and apply at par to both private individual and Government but where the Government makes out a case of sufferings to public interest owing to acts of fraud and bad faith on the part of its officials and agents, and also, the intention of Government not to allow such officers of doubtful integrity to go scot free, the Court should also come forward to do justice in the interest of public at large, but, a mere eye wash kind of explanation, without any honest intention of State authorities to proceed against tainted officers, or, those who have acted in a bad faith, or, those who have worked negligently, the explanation that delay must be condoned in public interest would be superficial and lacking bona fide, hence difficult to be accepted by Court.
14. In G. Ramegowda, Major v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, MANU/SC/0161/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 897, in para 8 of the judgment, the Court said:
"8........ Therefore, in assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for purposes of Section 5 it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the 39 considerations that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have 'a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning-of course, within a reasonable limits-is necessary if the judicial approach is not rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the conduct of the law-officers of the Government placed the Government in a predicament and that it was one of these cases where the mala fides of the officers should not be imputed to Government."
15. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/1296/1997 : AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said:
"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on quitable grounds."
10. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, 40 necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation."
16. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the words "sufficient cause" show that delay, if any, occurred, should not be deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of concerned litigant, but, it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons beyond his control, and, in any case should not lack bona fide. If the explanation does not smack of lack of bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the suiter, but, when there is apparent casual approach on the part of suiter, the approach of Court is also bound to change. Lapse on the part of litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of 41 showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him.
17. We need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on construing "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of Act, 1963 and it would be suffice to refer a very few of them besides those already referred.
18. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, MANU/SC/0335/1968 :
AIR 1969 SC 575 a three Judge Bench of the Court said, that, unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
19. The Privy Council in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram MANU/PR/0033/1917: ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds good, inasmuch as, the aforesaid decision of Privy Council has repeatedly been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, MANU/SC/0250/2005: AIR 2005 SC 2191.
20. In Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, MANU/SC/0382/2001: JT 2001(5) SC 608 the Court said that under Section 5 of Act, 1963 it should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a 42 relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.
21. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr., MANU/SC/0141/2010 : (2010) 5 SCC 459, the Court observed that same yardstick should be applied for allowing application for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, but certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay.
22. The aforesaid decision further makes it clear that it is only certain amount of latitude and not an unguided and unlimited charity in the matter of delay, insomuch so, that ignoring the apparent laxity on the part of State officials, the same must be ignore and merely because delay is on the part of State, it should be condoned. Extension of certain amount of latitude and a complete go by are two different things while the former is permissible but later one is totally prohibited. It is for this reason, this Court find that later aspect has been further explained in much explicit and straight manner in subsequent decisions rendered in 2012. 43
23. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr. MANU/SC/4694/2008: (2008) 17 SCC 448, in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said:
"...The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights."
24. The Court also noticed earlier decisions observing that lenient view in condoning delay may be taken when defaulting parties are the Government and Government Undertaking and in this regard, it proceeded to hold in paras 29 and 30 as under:
"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land losers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the 44 State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the land losers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the land losers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."
25. The above view has been followed in Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., MANU/SC/0132/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 1506, and in para 13 thereof, the Court as said as under:
"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the 45 file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
26. Following various earlier decisions, some of which have been referred hereinabove, including State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others (supra) in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, MANU/SC/0298/2012 : 2012 (5) SCC 157, in para 18 of the judgment, the Court said as under:
"What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that 46 the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies / instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest."
27. In our view, the kind of explanation rendered in the case in hand does not satisfy the observations of Apex Court that if delay has occurred for reasons which does not smack of mala fide, the Court 47 should be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, we find that here is a case which shows a complete careless and reckless long delay on the part of applicants which has remained virtually unexplained at all. Therefore, we do not find any reason to exercise our judicial discretion exercising judiciously so as to justify condonation of delay in the present case.
28. Annexure R-2 filed with the objection discloses that the matter was reported to the CPCB and Regional Director, CPCB has reported the facts to the Member Secretary, CPCB with regard to the pollution in Nagda industrial area and have been reported vide letter dated 24.12.2023 that at the interval of time different complaints are received and due actions are taken against the polluting industries. It is further submitted that the units of the respondent was examined and nothing adverse has been found by the CPCB.
29. Vide reference letter (Annexure-9) submitted by the applicant discloses that the committee consisting following officer was constituted (1) Director Environment, MPPCB (2) Tehsildar MPPCB, (3) Labour Inspector (4) Assistant Director Agriculture Department (5) Superintending Engineer (6) Scientist (7) Ground Water Authority and other 17 officers of the different departments to investigate the matter and they have reported that nothing adverse has been found against the unit.
30. In light of the above facts the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal and necessary directions have been issued vide order dated 08.12.2023 in O.A. No. 02/2023 (CZ) thus this is a repetition of the matters. Other issue with regard to discharge of untreated water following directions have already been issued : - 48
1. The unit should take measures to control the odour /smell in the area as per recommendations/suggestions in the odour related study conducted by M/s JM Enviro, Gurugram.
2. District Administration should ensure tap water supply in affected villages i.e. Pardi, Takrawda, Parmarkhedi etc Ghar Mission in light of high TDS in ground water of the village.
3. The unit should monitor the groundwater as well as surrounding the SLF site at least once in a year through NABL/EPA recognized and submit the report to MPPCB.
4. The rain water harvesting structures should be constructed for ground water quality improvement in nearby villages in consultation with CGWA.
5. Health check up camps should be organized in nearby village in association with local health authorities.
6. Municipal Council, Nagda should expedite the approval & construction of Sewage Treatment Plant without further delay.
7. The municipal Corporation, Nagda should make a action plan for treatment of waste water generated from commercial activities and vehicle washing etc. in industrial area.
8. MPPCB and local authority should keep constant vigil over the industry.
31. Learned Counsel for the respondent have submitted that all these recommendations directed vide order dated 08.12.2023 have been complied and followed. In addition to that the MPPCB has already been directed to periodically monitor the compliances and violation of environmental rules and 49 in case of any violation, necessary action may be initiated according to rules. Since the matter has already been heard and decided and necessary directions have already been issued, thus, Original Application No. 120/2024 and Original Application No. 124/2024 alongwith I.As. No. 56/2024 and I.A. No. 58/2024 are not maintainable at present. Thus, decided and disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM 29th May, 2024 O.A. No. 120/2024(CZ) O.A. No. 124/2024(CZ) K & PN 50