National Green Tribunal
Adil Ansari vs M/S. C.L. Gupta Export Ltd on 25 February, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
_______________________________________________
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 220/2019
(I.A. No. 184/2021)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Adil Ansari
S/o Mohd. Naushad Ansari
Add: 2 New Silampur, Garhi Medhu,
New Delhi- 110053
Applicant
Verses
1. M/s C.L Gupta Export Ltd.
18 Km. Stone, Delhi road, Vill- Jivai,
Jyotibaphule Nagar (Amroha),
Uttar Pradesh-244221
2. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB)
Through Its Chairman/Secretary
Building No. TC-12V, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226010
3. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Through Its Chairman/Secretary,
"Parivesh Bhawan" East Arjun Nagar,
Near: Karkarduma Court, Shahdara, Delhi.
4. Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)
West Block-2, Wing-3, R.K. Puram, Sector-1,
New Delhi-110066
5. District Magistrate
Dist: Amroha,
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s):
In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate for CGWA
Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for CPCB
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Umang Mehta, Advocate for
M/s C.L. Gupta Exports
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
1
Reserved on: 19th January, 2022
Pronounced on: 25th February, 2022
SYNOPSIS
Documents Para no Page no
Pleadings 1-7 2-7
Report dated 07.05.2019 vide order dated 08.03.2019 by UPPCB 8-12 6-11
Objection dt. 28.08.2019 by applicant to report dt. 07.05.2019 13-14 11-12
Report dated 16.07.2019 by UPPCB 15 12-14
NGT order dated 29.08.2019 16-17 15-16
Report dated 03.12.2019 vide order dated 29.08.2019 18-19 16-27
NGT order dated 04.12.2019 20-22 28-29
Reports dated 22.02.2020, 10.07.2020 and 05.08.2020 23-31 29-37
NGT order dated 06.08.2020 32-33 37
IA 273/2020 and NGT order dated 03.12.2020 34-35 37-39
Report dated 29.01.2021 pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 36 39-42
03.12.2020
Objections dated 03.02.2021 by PP to report dated 10.12.2020 37-39 42-50
NGT order dated 04.02.2021 40 50-51
Report dated 30.07.2021 vide NGT order dated 04.02.2021 41-59 51-119
Objection dated 10.08.2021 by PP 60-65 119-130
Written submissions by applicant dated 10.08.2021 66-69 130-154
IA No. 184/2021 70-71 155-156
Supplementary written submission dated 08.02.2020 by 72 156-160
respondent 1
Arguments 73-75 160-161
Issues formulated 76 161-162
Discussion on Merit 77-174 162-220
Issues I, II, III, IV & VIII 175 220-398
Ground Water-Concept-Past and Present 256-271 261-269
Law on use of Ground Water 272-288 269-275
Provincial Enactments for Regulation of Ground Water 289-290 275-295
History of CGWA, its origin and relevant provisions relating to its 291-428 295-383
powers, duties etc.
Offence under PMLA Act 2002 473-499 400-409
Role of CGWA AND UPGWD 500-505 409-411
Issues V, VI & VII 506-567 411-441
Environmental Compensation-Assessment/Methodology 508-565 411-440
Operative Part 569-571 441-443
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') has been filed under Section 14 and 15 (b) (c) read with Section 18 (1) (2) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act 2010') by Adil Ansari, claiming himself a spirited person, concerned with environmental degradation and pollution allegedly caused by respondent 1 i.e. M/s. C. L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., 18 km. Stone, Delhi road, Village Jivai, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'Project Proponent i.e. PP') alleging that it is a metal industry and in collusion with other respondents, namely Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'UPPCB'), Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CPCB'), Central Ground Water Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'CGWA') and District Magistrate, Amroha, UP, by illegal extraction of ground water and discharge of untreated hazardous effluent waste water with solid wastes into open Kachha drains which ultimately fall in river Ram Ganga, a tributary of river Ganga, causing massive pollution and damaging environment.
2. Applicant has prayed that this Tribunal should direct respondent 1 to stop illegal and unregulated withdrawal of ground water and discharge of harmful untreated hazardous effluent waste water and sludge into open drains; direct UPPCB, CPCB and CGWA to make spot inspection of the premises of respondent 1 and file a report indicating environmental pollution and degradation caused by him; direct PP to pay environmental compensation for causing irreparable damage and degradation to environment; impose heavy cost/penalty/compensation on PP for continued non-restricted, non-regulated over-extraction of ground water for commercial purpose without permission of authorities under Principle of 'Polluter's Pay' and 'inter-generational equity' and/or direct Government authorities to make ground water consumable/usable for local residents. Pleadings in OA
3. The facts stated in OA are that respondent 1 i.e., PP has a metal factory on National Highway-24 in District Amroha. It is located at 140 kms from Delhi, between holy river Ramganga and river Ganga, and at 18 kms Stone at Delhi Road, village Jiwai, Amroha. PP is causing pollution for the last more than 30 years, affecting ground water table which is falling probably in Dark Zone/Over-Exploited Area. It is unauthorizedly extracting and consuming mammoth quantity of water from ground without any permission from CGWA, without any consent from UPPCB 3 and discharging hazardous effluent/waste water directly into open drains leading to holy rivers Ram Ganga and Ganga. The metal industry of PP is under 'Red category' water polluting industry. Illegal operations/activities of PP industry are adversely affecting environment and overall ecology of area, the monitoring authorities/respondents either have colluded with PP or negligent towards their responsibilities and there have arisen substantial questions relating to environment towards implementation of Scheduled Acts under NGT Act 2010, wherein public at large is affected by environmental consequences which has to be considered by Tribunal.
4. Land area covered by PP is 280000 square feet and spread over 50 acres of land. It is manufacturing products in Brass, Aluminium, Copper, Zinc, Alloy, Stainless steel, Mild steel, Wrought iron, Wood and Glass. It is specially engaged in polishing, brushing, electroplating of metal products. PP is unauthorizedly extracting huge quantity of water through bore wells from ground without permission from CGWA. It is a large industry, consuming and extracting thousands kilo litre of water from ground as there is no provision of water supply by any other agency and local body. The area where PP is extracting ground water is declared as Dark Zone/Over-Exploited.
5. In Pre and Post Monsoon, Ground Water Level Data, 2016-2017, uploaded on the website of UP Ground Water Department (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWD'), level of ground water in most blocks of Amroha was mentioned as "Dry and Choke" but no action has been taken to maintain water level till date; respondent 1 i.e. PP is discharging most part of hazardous effluent/waste water without any treatment, into open drains leading into main municipal drain which is highly polluted, dirty and full of sludge; condition of chimney is pathetic; it is emitting excessive harmful gases with fly ash/dust particles which spread over a large area and is 4 visible; the gases emitted are harmful for the health of villagers and animals and also for crops; PP industry is sole industry located in the area concerned which has resulted in bad air quality index; quality of water in the area concerned is very pathetic and causing various diseases due to polluted water in the area; the activities of PP unit are spreading diseases in the form of infection to nearby residents; area has no sanitation and hygiene; foul smell exists all the time; and State Authorities have utterly failed in safeguarding environment in the area concerned.
6. Report of Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation shows that ground water has already been contaminated/non-consumable but concerned agencies are not taking any steps for improvement. Contaminated ground water and polluted air is affecting health of local residents, the reason being discharge of trade effluents by industries and smoke coming out from chimney of unit of PP. The loss caused by environmental pollution is affecting, in various ways, local residents who are spending substantial money on their health rather than for other comforts of life and neither Government is taking any interest in improvement of the situation nor condition of villagers is getting improved. Harmful chemicals used for electroplating, painting, alloy making and in production of wrought iron releases nitrogenous, sulphuric and carbon mixed gases like carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide etc. causing several health diseases to the people residing in nearby areas and it is polluting environment also. PP unit has a continuous tank furnace with a capacity of 35 tonnes per day and an automatic 16 station press in addition to furnace with a capacity of 50 tonnes per day which releases large quantity of harmful gases. Further, respondent 1's metal industry generates 6MW electricity through big high-speed boilers and generator sets which continuously release harmful gases in environment. Chimney of 5 respondent 1 industry releases lot of smoke and dust which are mixed with air and cause health hazardous to the people residing in nearby areas.
7. OA was entertained on 08.03.2019. Considering facts stated in the application, Tribunal found it appropriate to obtain a factual and action taken report. It accordingly constituted a joint Committee comprising CPCB and UPPCB and directed to submit report. Report dated 07.05.2019 by UPPCB pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 08.03.2019
8. Joint Committee inspected premises of PP on 28.03.2019 and submitted report through Shri Amit Chandra, Chief Environment Officer, UPPCB. In respect of PP, report said:
(i) M/s. C. L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in production of wood artwares, metal artwares, glass artwares and marble artwares;
(ii) It's consented production capacity of metal artwares is 200 TPM, glass artwares is 250 TPM and wood artwares is 150 TPM by electroplating process;
(iii) UPPCB granted Consent to Operate under Section 25/26 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act 1974') vide letter dated 09.05.2018 and consent under Section 21/22 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act 1981') vide letter dated 11.05.2018. These consents were valid till 31.12.2019;
(iv) In the consent letter dated 09.05.2018, issued under Water Act 1974, a condition was imposed that PP unit shall treat industrial/domestic effluent through Effluent Treatment Plant/Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as 'ETP' and 'STP') and recycle treated water in process/gardening/flushing; 6
(v) Further condition was imposed that PP unit shall maintain Zero Liquid Discharge (hereinafter referred to as 'ZLD') outside the premises and Cyanide plating or use of Cyanide in the process was not allowed;
(vi) UPPCB issued authorization under Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'HWMTM Rules 2016') for disposal of ETP sludge through authorized Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facility (hereinafter referred to as 'TSDF').
9. The observations of Committee are:
"6- In the joint inspection report following major observations made by the joint inspection team -
At the time of inspection, it was found that inside drains of industry connected with Kachha drain outside behind the factory which ultimately meet to kachha pond near village-Ambheda. Due to that one sample has been collected from the kachha pond near village-Ambheda.
The distance of Ram Ganga River from M/s C.L. Gupta Export ltd. is about 20 Km. and there is no any local drain/Nalah are found in this area which connect to Ram ganga/Ganga River.
The Industry has obtained authorization for disposal of Hazardous waste (ETP sludge) under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans- Boundary Movement) Rules having validity up to 18.01.2021. At the time of inspection, it was found that other type of hazardous waste also stored in the premises like empty containers of paint, lacquer, electroplating chemicals, oil soaked cotton rags, used oils etc. Hence industry is directed to dispose other Hazardous waste through TSDF and obtain authorization from U.P. Pollution Control Board for total Hazardous waste generated. A Notice has been sent to industry to comply the provision of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans- Boundary Movement) Rules vide letter no-1781/Haz.-34/Amroha-19 dated-30-03- 2019.
At the time of inspection, it was found that industry is involved in the expansion/modification in premises and Thermocol manufacturing unit was found operational without having consent to establish/operate. A notice has been sent to the industry to comply the provision of Air and water act vide letter no.-1782/C-9/Amroha-19 dated30.03.2019. Copy attached.7
The ETP treated effluent analysis report of wood case division shows pH- 6.59 as against 5.5-9.0; COD-6200 mg/l as against 250 mg/l; BOD-1985 mg/l as against 30 mg/l; TSS-60 mg/l as against 100 mg/l; PO4-P- 0.15 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l; Oil & Grease- 06 mg/l as against 10.0 mg/l; NH3-N- 05 mg/l as against 50 mg/l; and Cyanide - 1.6 mg/l as against 0.2 mg/l as per general discharge norms E(P) rules, 1986.
The ETP treated effluent analysis report of metal division shows pH- 7.17 as against 5.5-9.0; COD-41 mg/l as against 250 mg/l; BOD- 08 mg/l as against 30 mg/l; TSS- 06 mg/l as against 100 mg/l; PO4-P- 0.33 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l; Oil & Grease- BDL mg/l as against 10.0 mg/l; NH3-N- 08 mg/l as against 50 mg/l; and Cyanide - 0.49 mg/l as against 0.2 mg/l as per general discharge norms E(P) rules, 1986.
The ETP treated effluent analysis report of glass division shows pH- 7.44 as against 5.5-9.0; COD- 86 mg/l as against 250 mg/l; BOD- 18 mg/l as against 30 mg/l; TSS- 35 mg/l as against 100 mg/l; PO4-P- 0.13 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l; Oil & Grease- BDL mg/l as against 10.0 mg/l; NH3-N- BDL mg/l as against 50 mg/l; Cyanide - BDL mg/l as against 0.2 mg/l and Zn- 7.28 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l as per general discharge norms E(P) rules, 1986.
The analysis report of glass division STP shows pH- 6.49 as against 5.5-9.0; COD- 88 mg/l as against 250 mg/l; BOD- 23 mg/l as against 30 mg/l; TSS- 55 mg/l as against 100 mg/l; and PO4-P- 0.21 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l as per general discharge norms E(P) rules, 1986.
The analysis report of metal division STP shows pH- 7.15 as against 5.5-9.0; COD- 18 mg/l as against 250 mg/l; BOD- 05 mg/l as against 30 mg/l; TSS- 23 mg/l as against 100 mg/l; and PO4-P- 0.14 mg/l as against 5.0 mg/l as per general discharge norms E(P) rules, 1986.
The lab analysis report of sample collected from ground water (handpump) behind the premises of M/s C. L. Gupta Export Ltd; shows TDS- 534 mg/l as against 500 mg/l; Total alkalinity as CaCO3 - 637 mg/l as against 200 mg/l; Total hardness as CaCO3 - 440 mg/l as against 200 mg/l; and Colour 12 Hazen as against 05 Hazen as per IS 10500:2012 for drinking water.
The lab analysis report of sample collected from pond behind the premises of M/s C. L. Gupta Export Ltd; shows COD- 330 mg/l; colour - 142 Hazen.
A copy of report submitted by the Joint Inspection Team is annexed at Annexure No.1.
7- Considering above observations of Joint Inspection Team, U.P Pollution Control Board vide its letter dated 22-04-2019 has issued Show Cause Notice under section 33A of Water Act, 8 1974 for the closure of the unit and also imposed an Environmental Compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh (Rs. Ten Lakh Only). Besides unit has been directed not to operate the expansion/modification component of the production process made in premises and Thermo-coal manufacturing unit without obtaining prior Consent to Establish followed by Consent to Operate for the said activity under the provisions of Pollution Control Laws. The Letter dated 22-04-2019 is annexed as Annexure No. 2. A copy of compliance of closure direction submitted by the unit is annexed at Annexure No. 3.
8- U.P. Pollution Control Board has initiated proceedings for prosecution against M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., 18 K.M. Delhi-Moradabad highway, N.H. 24, Village Jivai, Amroha under section 44 of Water Act, 1974."
10. Report further said that PP informed Regional Officer, UPPCB by letter dated 02.05.2019, in reply to show cause/closure notice that it has closed Thermocol Plant until further orders, no expansion activity is in process and anything further shall be done after approval from UPPCB.
11. The aforesaid report also accompanied a notice dated 30.03.2019 issued by UPPCB to PP seeking its clarification/rectification on following points:
(i) For treatment of domestic effluent generated from residential colony of industrial unit, no STP has been established and the said effluent is being discharged in a pond through kacha drain;
(ii) There was a condition no. 3 in consent letter that no industrial or domestic effluent outside the premises of industry, shall be discharged;
(iii) For conservation and recharge of rain water, 12 rain water harvesting units were to be established but the same were not completed;
(iv) As per consent letter, condition no. 8, unit was to install electromagnetic flow meter for measurement of ground water through bore wells but it has established only Kranti Make water flow meter which are of mechanical type;9
(v) 6 bore wells were found in the premises of industry though as per permission granted by CGWA, extraction of ground water of 330KL/day from 2 bore wells was permitted;
(vi) At the time of inspection, it was found that record of only 2 bore wells was maintained and about remaining 4 tube wells, it was informed that the same are not in use but they were neither dismantled nor disconnected and earlier prepared log book was also not made available for verifying as to what period the aforesaid tube wells were operated;
(vii) The boilers with the capacity of 1 ton per hour and 2 ton per hour were established in the unit before but at the time of inspection, one boiler with 4 ton steam capacity was established against earlier 2 ton per hour capacity boiler and two ton per hour capacity boiler was being used as standby;
(viii) No sanction was obtained for establishment of 4 ton per hour capacity boiler;
(ix) On the side of metal section, in wood section, industry has established a Thermic Fluid Heater with capacity of 10 lakhs kcal. In this regard, no air pollution control arrangement was made and neither consent for establishment nor for operation thereof, was obtained from UPPCB;
(x) No arrangement was made for control of dust in the buffing section situated near glass furnish division in the industry;
(xi) Near glass division, unit is also manufacturing Thermocol slabs with the capacity of 1 ton/day. The industry is in Orange Category but no consent for establishment or operation with regard to air pollution, has been obtained;
10
(xii) The unit is engaged in expansion by construction of new sheds but no information in this regard, has been given to UPPCB and no consent for establishment has been obtained.
12. Another notice dated 30.03.2019 was issued by Regional Officer, UPPCB to respondent 1 under HWMTM Rules 2016, stating that authorization was given on 18.01.2016 for disposal of dry sludge of 20km/day but at the time of inspection, empty containers of paint, thinner, lacquer, electroplating chemicals were lying in the factory premises and the production process involved metal buffing dust, oil soaked cotton rags, discarded paint, paint/lacquer sludge, used lubricant oil etc. for disposal whereof, no authorization was obtained from UPPCB and the same were kept in factory premises but no information for disposal was given in Form-10.
Objections dated 28.08.2019 filed by applicant to the joint inspection report dated 07.05.2019
13. Applicant, Adil Ansari filed objections to the joint inspection report on 28.08.2019, stating that report shows that respondent 1 unit is violating environmental norms and causing air and water pollution and it is a non-complying unit. Earlier also, in OA No. 301/2016, Shailesh Singh vs. M/s. C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Others, which was disposed of on 01.02.2017 wherein it was found that there exist 6 tube wells, installed in the premises of PP who sought permission from CGWA to extract ground water therefrom but CGWA by order dated 27.12.2016, after evaluating possible adverse impact on environment and criticality of the area, got satisfied that depletion of water is not to such an extent as to refuse consent, hence granted permission to extract ground water from 2 bore wells only. From 2 bore wells, PP was allowed to extract 330m3/day ground water but not exceeding 99000m3/year. Though, there was dispute 11 as to when these 6 bore wells were installed in as much as PP claimed that 2 bore wells were existing prior to 2001 and 4 were dug in the year 2016. Tribunal did not adjudicate on this disputed question, held that since existence of 2 bore wells in 2001 was admitted, mere digging of bore well is not relevant but extraction of ground water therefrom was relevant, PP has extracted ground water for commercial benefits hence environmental compensation must be determined and consequently, it imposed environmental compensation of Rs.15 lakhs which was earlier also proposed by interim order and maintained. An additional compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed making total environmental compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs. Tribunal also directed CGWA to ensure that out of 6 bore wells, since permission has been granted only for 2, rest are not allowed to function but be sealed. Amount of environmental compensation was directed to be paid to CGWA so as to be utilized for any activity with regard to ground water extraction in the area concerned.
14. Applicant further stated that the team has not examined various aspects including damage caused to rivers and drains, to nearby area, agriculture field of local residents; no health check-up of villagers has been undertaken; no sample of drinking water and soil has been collected; no complaint has been filed under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981; the condition with regard to implementation of rain water harvesting system has not been complied with, still concerned Regulators have not rejected NOC/Consent issued to respondent 1.
Report dated 16.07.2019 by UPPCB
15. Another report was submitted vide letter dated 16.07.2019 showing that another inspection was made by Shri S.K. Tripathy, Scientist Assistant and Mr. A.K. Sharma, Assistant Environment Engineer on 12 01.06.2019 under the instructions of Headquarter of UPPCB and the observations made are:
(i) Unit was permitted disposal of ETP sludge of 20km/day but empty containers of paint, thinner, lacquer, electroplating chemicals were found in the premises. It was also using oil-soaked cotton rags, discarded paint, paint/lacquer sludge, used lubricant oil etc. were also found as hazardous waste generated from production activity for which no authorization has been obtained from UPPCB;
(ii) Unit was manufacturing Thermocol slabs with the capacity of 1 ton/day in respect whereof notice was issued on 22.04.2019 and thereupon the said production was closed by unit;
(iii) An online application for permission to restart the said production was submitted by PP in respect whereof concerned office of PCB sent its comments to Head Quarter by letter dated 13.06.2019;
(iv) In the premises, at metal division, trade effluents emanating from pickling, phosphating, electroplating processes were being treated in a treatment plant and it was found functional at the time of inspection;
(v) The discharge effluent after treatment was sealed and sample was taken. Various components were found as per prescribed standards;
(vi) The percentage of the various components in the sample were found as under:
a) pH- 7.56,
b) BOD-26mg/l ,
c) COD-91mg/l,
d) SS-23.5mg/l,
e) Zn-0.204mg/l,
f) Cu-BDL, Ni-Nd;
(vii) Unit has treatment plants for effluents generated from coating/paint coating process. Sample was collected and examined and results are as under:13
a) pH- 7.23,
b) BOD-28mg/l ,
c) COD-244mg/l,
d) SS-22mg/l,
e) Zn-0.293mg/l,
f) Cu-0.859mg/l,
g) Ni-0.969mg/l
h) Phosphate-0.265mg/l The aforesaid result is in accordance with prescribed standards;
(viii) In glass division of unit from phosphating and electroplating, generated trade effluents are being treated in a plant which was found functional. There also, the sample was taken and the result is as under:
a) pH- 7.74,
b) BOD-8.2mg/l ,
c) COD-92mg/l,
d) SS-4.8mg/l,
e) Zn-0.620mg/l,
f) Cu-0.149mg/l,
g) Ni-0.031mg/l
h) Phosphate-0.329mg/l The aforesaid result is also in accordance with prescribed standards;
(ix) Out of 6 tube wells established in the premises, only 2 were allowed to be used for extraction of ground water wherein mechanical type Kranti Make water flow meters were installed and remaining 4 tube wells were found disconnected;
(x) For civil treatment generated pump, the residential part of unit, 2 STP of 60 KLD capacity are installed since before and 1 STP of 60 KLD was found in the process of construction whereof 70% of the work was completed at the time of inspection;
(xi) Water samples at different places of nearby villages collected and sent to the Central Laboratory, UPPCB at Lucknow. The samples were found as per the prescribed standards.14
Tribunal's order dated 29.08.2019
16. The aforesaid two reports were considered by Tribunal on 29.08.2019. Summary of report dated 07.05.2019 was referred in the order. Tribunal observed that the unit, contrary to authorization under HWMTM Rules, 2016 is storing hazardous waste like empty containers of paint, thinner, lacquer, electroplating chemicals, oil-soaked cotton rags, discarded paint, paint/lacquer sludge, used lubricant oil etc.; found involved in expansion/modification in premises and Thermocol manufacturing unit was found operational without consent to establish or operate. The effluent analysis report of wood division and metal division was not found as per parameters hence unit was directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as environmental compensation and not to operate expansion/modification components without CTO and CTE. Thus Tribunal approved report dated 07.05.2019 but gave no weight to report dated 01.06.2019 since neither the said report was in furtherance of Tribunal's order nor it was made clear as to what prompted inspection on 01.06.2019 when a report was already submitted just about 25 day back, to Tribunal and pending consideration. The clumsy report shows more an attempt to give certificate to PP on discharge of polluted effluent found in inspection made on 28.03.2019. This is evident from the fact that report based on inspection dated 01.06.2019 said that STP of 120 KLD capacity were already installed while subsequent report dated 03.12.2019 said that new 120 KLD STP were made operational on 14.06.2019. Further total discharge of domestic waste water being 175 KLD, still 55KLD effluent remained untreated and was being discharged outside the premises.
17. Tribunal said that a further updated status report shall be submitted by joint Committee and it will also make an assessment of compensation to be recovered for the damage caused which should cover 15 the entire period of damage, be deterrent having regard to financial capacity of the unit and the nature of violations. Report dated 03.12.2019 pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 29.08.2019
18. This report showed that inspection was conducted by joint Committee on 16.10.2019. Compliance status in para 9 of the report is given as under:
"9.0 Compliance Status of the Recommendations provided in the last Joint committee inspection report Table 14 Compliance status of the recommendations provided in the last Joint committee inspection report Sr. Recommendation in Remarks Compliance Status No. the last Joint (Complying/non-
committee Inspection complying/ partial
report complying)
1 Total domestic waste The unit has Complying
water Generated from constructed new STP
industry/colony is about of 120 KLD capacity
175KLD. The industry at the residential
has installed 120 KLD colony for Treatment
capacity of STPs and of sewage generating
rest sewage passes from the residential
through septic. The colony and started
tank Industry must its operation from
install STP for 14th June, 2019.
remaining capacity of
55 KLD.
2 It should be ensured by A Leakage was Non-complying
the Industry that observed from the
drain/outlets, carrying peripheral wall of
industrial/domestic residential colony's
Wastewater which are STP, which was
connected with Kacha going into the Kachha
pond are to be
Pond, which is
dismantled or sealed
located behind the
and no water or
wastewater from the unit. The unit has
premises reach the pond not Dismantled
at any time outside the open drain, which is
premises. carrying domestic
wastewater at the
residential colony
behind the installed
STP.
3 As per the permission At the time of Non-complying
from CGWA only 02 bore inspection remaining
wells are allowed for 04 borewells were
abstraction of found just covered
groundwater. The with the help of red
cloth and all the
16
remaining 04 borewells other connections
installed in premises were observed
should be dismantled along with the
immediately. borewells.
4 The industry must be A Leakage was Non-complying
strictly followed ZLD observed from the
process. Peripheral wall of
residential colony's
STP, which was
going into the Kachha
Pond, which is
located behind the
unit. Industrial
effluent was being
mixed with the
domestic effluent and
was being used in
gardening, which is
not acceptable to
establish ZLD.
5 At the time of inspection, The unit has Complying
it was found that obtained CTO under
industry is involved in section 21/22 of the
the expansion/ Air (Prevention &
modification in premises Control of Pollution)
hence industry must be Act, 1981 from
UPPCB for Thermocol
obtained CTE from
Block Manufacturing
UPPCB before expansion
plant dated
/modification. 27.09.2019, which
is valid up to
31.12.2019.
6 The industry has The industry has Complying
obtained the obtained the
authorization for authorization (No.
disposal of Hazardous 8531, issued dated
waste ETP sludge only. 16.07.2019) for
At the time of inspection, disposal of
it was found that other hazardous waste like
type of hazardous waste empty containers,
also stored in the cotton waste, used
premises like empty cloth mask, rubber
containers of paint, gloves, old batteries,
lacquer, electroplating booth sludge, oily
chemicals, oil- soaked rags, used oil,
cotton rags, used oils etc. empty corrugated
The industry must be cartons, melting
obtained authorization furnace ash,
for all types Hazardous asbestos
waste generated from gloves/cloth, filter
the factory and it should and air filter,
be ensured to dispose of polishing dust and
through authorized TSDF ETP sludge from
only. UPPCB, which is
valid upto
16.07.2024.
Authorization No.
8531 is placed at
Annexure-7.
17
7 The industry should The unit has not Non-complying
install an installed
electromagnetic flow electromagnetic
meter on all the water flow meter on all the
supply system as well as water supply system
inlet and outlets of the as well as inlet and
ETPs and STPs and
outlets of the ETPs
proper record/logbooks
and STPs. The unit is
should be maintained.
maintaining
logbook for flow
meter reading only
and not for daily
sludge generation,
hence it can be
concluded that the
unit is partially
maintaining the
record/logbooks.
8 Flow meters installed at The unit has not yet Non-complying
the outlet pipeline of the relocated the flow
wood case ETP and meters which are
outlet of STPs should be installed at the
relocated to any suitable outlet pipeline of
outlet position having the wood case ETP
easy access for getting and outlet of STPs
the flow details of treated to other suitable
effluent. outlet position having
easy access for
getting the flow
details of treated
effluent.
9 The performance of Analysis result of Non-complying
wood case division samples collected
ETP is poor and not from ETP outlet of
meeting the general Wood division
effluent discharge showed BOD-
norms for inland 43mg/I against the
surface water. The unit General Standard
must upgrade and of 30mg/I and NH3-
augment ETP to meet the N 68mg/I against
standards. The ETP the General
treated wastewater Standard of 50
strictly should not be mg/I for discharge to
used for irrigation/ inland surface water,
horticulture purposes till which is non-
up-gradation of ETP complying (refer
system. Table 7).
10 Cyanide value of metal Cyanide value of Complying
and wood case division metal and wood case
ETP is on higher sight so, division ETP was
unit should operate and observed BDL and
maintain CN (Cyanide) 0.09 mg/I
removal unit Properly to respectively against
meet the standards. the standard for
discharge to Inland
surface of 0.2 mg/I,
which was within the
limit.
18
19. Joint Committee recorded its conclusions in para 10 as under:
"10.0 Conclusion 10.1 Ground water withdrawal
1. The unit is not having valid NOC from CGWA for withdrawal of groundwater, the NOC has been expired on 20.12.2018.
2. As per expired CGWA NOC, the unit was permitted to extract 330 KLD of ground water from 02 nos. of borewells only. However, the unit has extracted 8.45 KLD of ground water apart from 02 borewells (from borewell no. 6-refer Table-
3) from July-2019 to 15th Oct-2019, which is violation of CGWA NOC. Hence, Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water shall be calculated and levied on the unit.
3. Analysis result of samples collected from Borewell No. 3 & 4 found complying with the permissible limit of drinking water quality standard while, sample collected from handpump (inside Masjid) showed Fe-1.94 mg/l against 0.3 mg/l and Mn-0.35 mg/l against 0.3 mg/l of the permissible limit of drinking water quality standard.
10.2 ETP/STP Adequacy and Effluent Discharge Norms
1. The unit does not have valid consent to operate for separate ETPs and STPs, which are provided at Wooden Artware mfg. division, Glass Artware mfg. division, Metal Artware mfg. division and Residential colony.
2. The unit has not provided adequate requisite biological treatment facility at ETPs installed at Wooden Artware mfg. division and Glass Artware mfg. division.
3. The unit has not installed Secondary/biological treatment facility in any STPs installed in the unit.
4. During visit, no ETP sludge has been found at ETP areas of Glass division, Wood division and Metal division, which indicates that the unit is not operating the ETP continuously.
5. During visit, no STP sludge has been found at STP areas of Glass division, Wood division and Residential Colony, which indicates that the unit is not operating the STP continuously.
6. The unit is not maintaining logbook for ETP/STP for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETPs/STPs at Glass division, Wood division and Metal division.
Wood Division:
i. The ETP at Wood division found non-complying w.r.t BOD and NH3-N and the unit is not maintaining MLSS concentration in the Aeration tank of ETP, hence it can be concluded that, the unit do not have adequate ETP at wood division.
ii. The unit is not operating and mainaining properly the Secondary/biological treatment facility in ETP and reduction of BOD from 3240 mg/l (at inlet) to 43 mg/l (at 19 outlet) clearly indicates dilution with fresh water addition at wood division.
iii. No flow meter is provided at inlet and recycled pipeline of ETP.
Glass Division:
i. Analysis result of samples collected from ETP outlet of Glass division found non-complying w.r.t NO3-N, Cr, Fe, Ni, Se and Zn for discharge to inland surface water. ii. The unit has not installed secondary treatment unit while as per the analysis result of collected sample of ETP inlet, it is having COD concen. of 754 mg/l, which practically not possible without biological treatment, hence dilution or by-pass cannot be ruled out. iii. No flow meter is provided at inlet and recycled pipeline of ETP. iv. The unit is mixing grinding effluent of Glass division with the domestic effluent and treating the same in STP provided for Glass division and analysis result of samples collected from STP outlet of Glass division found non- complying w.r.t pH-3.08, TSS-230 mg/l and BOD-81 mg/l, hence it can be concluded that mixing of grinding effluent with the domestic effluent is leading to the non- compliance of the Glass division's STP discharge norms as prescribed in the unit's consent and the unit cannot be allowed to utilize the treated domestic effluent for gardening purpose.
v. The characteristics of the STP effluent (pH-2.58, COD-475 mg/l) at inlet of STP establish the fact that the unit is treating industrial effluent along with the domestic effluent in STP.
Metal Division:
i. No flow meter is provided at inlet and recycled pipeline of ETP.
ii. Analysis result of samples collected from ETP outlet found complying w.r.t stipulated norms for discharge to inland surface water.
iii. Analysis result of samples collected from outlet of STP found noncomplying w.r.t BOD-104 mg/l and COD-267 mg/l against effluent discharge standards to all mode of disposal.
10.3 Haz. Waste Management i. The unit do not have valid agreement with Transport Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) for lifting, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste generated at M/s C. L. Gupta Exports Ltd., Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. It was expired on 31/03/2019.
ii. The unit could not provide details of remaining categories of hazardous waste except ETP sludge, Gloves/ masks and old batteries sent to TSDF facility from year 2017 to 2019.
iii. As stipulated under the Guidelines for storage of incinerable hazardous wastes, the unit have not provided automatic water sprinkling arrangements, fire alarming systems, flame arresters, smoke/ heat detectors, fire extinguishers and other necessary provisions in the storage area.
20 iv. As prescribed in Form 8 of the HOWM Rules, 2016, the unit is required to label the bags with requisite details, while there was no labeling on bags stored with hazardous wastes as per the Rule 17(1) of the HOWM Rules.
v. The unit has not mentioned the details of other haz. Waste apart from ETP sludge, Gloves/ masks and Old battery in the annual return of year 2017-18 and 2018-19. Also, annual return before the year 2016-17 could not be provided by the unit.
vi. The unit is maintaining daily records of the hazardous waste generated and disposed, however, such daily record is not as per the Form 3 prescribed under Rule 20(1) of the HOWM Rules, 2016.
vii. The unit has not provided the process flow chart including material balance for production of each of the products, hence, the relationship between products manufactured and quantity waste generated, which may be utilized in the process or sent to the TSDF cannot be establish.
In view of the above violations w.r.t haz. Waste management, Environmental Compensation has been calculated to be levied on the unit.
11.0 Recommendations based on the above observations 11.1 Water Consumption of the unit & Analysis result of ground water samples
1. The unit shall obtain NOC from CGWA for withdrawal of groundwater, as the CGWA NOC have already been expired on 20.12.2018.
2. All the fresh water consumption points and treated effluent recycling points should be metered and logbook shall be maintained against each flow meter.
3. All existing meters should be periodically calibrated and records to be maintained.
4. The unit shall engage expert institute to carry out detailed Water Audit for detailed study of total water consumption and recycling for reduction of the withdrawal of the ground water. 11.2 For Wooden Art ware mfg. Section
1. The unit shall modify/upgrade the ETP and shall operate properly to comply with the norms stipulated in CTO.
2. The unit shall provide sampling point at approachable location for collection of ETP outlet sample.
3. The unit shall install flowmeter at inlet of ETP and at recycled water pipeline.
4. The unit shall install primary clarifier in the ETP provided at Wood division and shall maintain MLSS concentration in Aeration tank-1 and Aeration tank-2.
5. The unit shall maintain ETP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP and ETP sludge disposal.
6. The unit shall operate ETP regularly and shall have trained ETP operator with environment background, who is able to operate the ETP properly.
21
7. The unit shall discard the extra pipelines which are connected with the final HDPE treated tank.
8. The unit shall obtain consent to operate for separate ETP provided at Wooden Artware mfg. division.
11.3 For Glass Art ware mfg. Section and for STP at Glass Section
1. The unit shall stop mixing of industrial effluent in STP and shall stop using treated effluent in gardening within the premises.
2. The unit shall keep and maintain ETP and STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP/STP and ETP/STP sludge disposal.
3. The unit shall install flowmeter at inlet of ETP and at recycled water pipeline.
4. The unit shall display the actual flow chart of the actual unit processes being followed in the ETP,
5. The unit shall have trained operator for ETP and STP with environment background, who is able to operate the ETP and STP properly.
6. The unit shall stop the practice of treatment of mixed effluent of grinding section and domestic waste water in the STP and shall treat domestic effluent separately.
7. The unit shall install Secondary/biological treatment facility in the STP installed at Glass division for treatment of sewage and to use the same for toilet flushing/gardening within the premises.
8. The unit shall obtain consent to operate for separate ETP provided at Glass Artware mfg. division, 11.4 For Metal Art ware mfg. Section and for STP at Metal Section
1. The unit shall operate ETP as well as STP properly & continuously.
2. The unit shall keep and maintain ETP and STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP/STP and ETP/STP sludge disposal. The unit shall install flowmeter at inlet of ETP and at recycled water pipeline.
3. The unit shall have trained operator for ETP and STP with environment background, who is able to operate the ETP and STP properly.
4. The unit shall install Secondary/biological treatment facility in the STP installed at Metal division for treatment of sewage and to use the same for toilet flushing/gardening within the premises,
5. The unit shall obtain consent to operate for separate ETP provided at Metal Artware mfg. division.
11.5 For STP provided at Residential Colony
1. As Leackage was observed on the periferrial wall of residential colony's STP, hence it can be concluded that, the unit failed to comply with the consent condition of reuse of treated domestic effluent in flushing/gardening within the premises. The unit shall seal/close the leackage and shall ensure that in any condition, the treated/untreated domestic/industrial effluent shall not go outside of the unit's 22 premises and shall strictly follow the ZLD condition as per the consent to operate.
2. The unit shall keep and maintain STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the STP and STP sludge disposal.
3. The unit shall operate STP regularly and shall have trained STP operator with environment background, who is able to operate the STP properly.
4. The unit shall seal all the open drains which transfer the treated STP and shall install proper closed pipe system for the same.
5. The unit shall obtain consent to operate for separate STP provided at Residential colony.
11.6 For Hazardous Waste Management The unit shall:
1. Send hazardous waste to the TSDF with valid agreement with TSDF;
2. Maintain daily records on generation, storage, management of hazardous wastes in compliance with Rule 20(1) of the HOWM Rules, 2016;
3. Submit the Annual return w.r.t. generation and management of each of the hazardous waste to Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, as required under Rule 20(2) of the HOWM Rules, 2016.
4. Package and label the hazardous waste in accordance with provisions stipulated under Rule-17 of the HOWM Rules, 2016;
5. Install automatic water sprinkling arrangements, fire alarming systems, flame arresters, smoke /heat detectors, fire extinguishers and other necessary provisions as stipulated under the Guidelines for storage of incinerable hazardous wastes;
6. Install necessary slope, channelization drain and collection pit for management of spilled oil; and
7. Install display board outside the factory gate displaying details of hazardous wastes being handled by the unit.
11.7 For Recommendations provided in the last Joint committee inspection report
1. The unit has failed to comply with the recommendation mentioned at para 10 at point 2, 3, 7, 8 & 9 and shall, taken necessary action immediately. In addition following are recommended.
2. The unit shall dismantle the channel carrying effluent from STP located at residential colony.
3. The unit shall seal illegal 04 borewells properly and shall dismantle all the electrical and pipeline connections along with the same and shall not withdraw ground water from the illegal borewells.
4. The unit shall maintain ETP & STP log book record properly for flow meter reading, daily sludge generation and sludge disposal.
5. As per the Analysis result of samples collected from ETP outlet of Wood division, it found non-complying w.r.t BOD-43 mg/l and NH3-N-68 mg/l for discharge to inland surface water.
Hence, the unit shall operate ETP properly and treated effluent must meet the discharge norms as mentioned in the granted CTO. Treated wastewater should not be used for 23 irrigation/horticulture purposes, if the quality of treated effluent is not meeting with the stipulated discharge norms. 11.8 For NGT order dt. 29.08.2019 in O.A. No. 220/2019 Principal Bench, New Delhi
1. Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 29.08.2019 directed that, "The joint Committee may also make an assessment of the compensation to be recovered for the damage caused which should cover the entire period of damage and should be deterrent having regard to financial capacity of the unit and the nature of violations."
Assessment of the compensation to be recovered for the damage caused covering the entire period of damage needs detailed survey through expert institutes. Hence, expert institute may be engaged for the detailed study of environmental damage caused by the unit for the entire period to cover the environmental compensation from the unit.
2. However, the committee has been calculated Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, for ZLD condition violation and for not managing Haz. Waste as per management as per the HOWM Rules, 2016 in the following section (Section 12.0).
12.0 Environmental Compensation 12.1 EC for illegal extraction of ground water
1. EC has been calculated as per the Report prepared by CPCB on "Assessment of Environmental Compensation in case of illegal extraction of Ground water" dated 26 June, 2019 which was submitted in compliance to Hon'ble NGT order dated 07/05/2019 in O.A. No. 327/2018 in the matter of Shailesh Singh Vs Central Ground Water Board & Others. The copy of the Report is placed at Annexure-11.
2. The EC has been calculated for the period beyond the expiry of CGWA NOC that is 20.12.2018 to 16.10.2019 and also for illegal annual extraction of 99,691 m3 for the period of 01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018, which is higher than the permitted ground water extraction of 99,000 m3/annum as below:
ECGW = Water consumption per day x EC rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGw) x No. of days x Deterrent Factor (A) Year: 2018-19 EC GW = 330 (m3 /day) x 120 (Rs/m 3 ) x 300* (days) x 1 = Rs.1,18,80,000/-.............................................(I) *CGWA NOC was valid up to 20.12.2018. Hence days calculated from the date of NOC expiration to the Joint inspection date (21.12.2018 to 16.10.2019=300 days)
- As per the above detailed calculation, the unit is liable to pay Rs. 1,18,80,000/- of EC for illegal ground water extraction.
(B) Year: 2017-18 ECGW = 2.30 (m3/day) x 120 (Rs/m3) x 365* (days) x 1 = Rs.1,00,740/-.........................................(II) 24 *As per the compliance status of CGWA NOC prepared by CGWA (placed at Annexure-12), the unit extracted 99,691 m3/annum during 01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018, which is higher than the permitted ground water extraction of 99,000 m3 /annum. Hence days calculated from 01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018=365 days
3. As per the above detailed calculation, the unit is liable to pay Rs.
1,00,740/- of EC for illegal ground water extraction. (C) In addition, the unit have total 06 borewells, while CGWA have issued NOC for extraction of ground water from 02 borewells only. Hence, illegal extraction of ground water from illegal 04 borewells could not be excessed as the unit has not installed flow meter, Hence environmental compensation for the same could not be calculated.
-The unit is liable to pay total Environmental compensation amount of Rs. 1,19,80,740 (Rs. 1,18,80,000 + Rs. 1,00,740) for illegal ground water extraction for the period of 01.10.2017 to 16.10.2019.
12.2 Environmental Compensation for violation of effluent discharge/ inadequate ETPs/ZLD norms as per CTO
1. As per the valid consent to operate issued under section 25/26 of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 it is mentioned that the domestic effluent shall be treated and reused in flushing/gardening within the premises.
2.But during inspection, a Leakage was observed from the peripheral wall of residential colony's STP, which was going into the Kachha Pond, which is located behind the unit. This is violation of effluent discharge/ inadequate ETPs/ZLD norms as per CTO. Hence the following EC has been calculated as per the "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" acknowledged by Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 19.02.2019 in the matter of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors in O.A. No. 93/2017:
Environmental Compensation (EC) = PI x N x R x S x LF Where, PI = Pollution index of industrial sector (here-80, for red category industrial sector), N = Number of days of violation took place (here-203 days, from date of inspection carried out by the joint team and found violation of ZLD norms dated 28.03.2019 to date of inspection of 2nd inspection of the joint team dated 16.10.2019) R = A factor in Rupees for Penalty (R to be taken as 250) S = Factor for scale of Operation of the facility (here-1.5, for large scale industry) LF = Location factor (Here-1, for less than 1 million population) Here, Date of last inspection: 28.03.2019 Date of current inspection: 16.10.2019 As per the EC formula, EC has been calculated as follows:25
A). 28.03.2019-25.06.2019 (EC=PI*N*R*S*LF) =80*90*250*1.5*1 =27,00,000/-
B). 26.06,2019-23.09.2019 (EC=PI*N*R*S*LF)*2 =80*90*250*1.5*1*2 =54,00,000/-
C). 23.09.2019-16.10.2019 (EC=PI*N*R*S*LF)*4 =80*23*250*1.5*1*4 =27,60,000/-
Total EC (A+B+C)= Rs. 1,08,60,000/- ......... ............(III) The unit is liable to pay total Environmental compensation amount of Rs. 1,08,60,000 /- for violation of ZLD norms for the period of 28.03.2017 to 16,10.2019.
12.3 Environmental Compensation for not managing Haz. Waste as per management as per the HOWM Rules, 2016 As per the methodology prepared by CPCB on "Determination of Environmental Compensation for violation of Hazardous waste and other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016" financial penalty and Environmental Compensation have been calculated as follows:
1. Financial Penalty The unit was found violating 07 provisions (at SI. No. 2, 3, 5b, 6(B)d, 8, 7 and 31) of HoWM Rules, 2016 for which 07 lakhs financial penalty may be imposed.
2. Environmental Compensation The following violations have been considered for calculation of EC
a) When hazardous and others wastes is disposed at unauthorised place or handed over or sold to unauthorised party and b)Waste found stored beyond the stipulated period (refer Rule 8 of the HOWM Rules, 2008)
a) When hazardous and others wastes is disposed at unauthorised place or handed over or sold to unauthorised party Hazardous Waste During inspection, it was observed that about 914 Kg of ETP sludge was found stored in the covered shed which is considered to be generated during the period from 1st April, 2019 to 15th October, 2019 i.e. in 6.5 months.
Whereas, as per the information provided by the unit, annual average ETP sludge generation during 2017-18 & 2018-19 is 4.567 MT and therefore during 6.5 moths ETP sludge is estimated 2968 kg.
26 The estimated quantity of ETP sludge disposed to unauthorized places is 2968914 = 2054 kg ~ 2.05 tonnes in 6.5 months.
Environmental Compensation = Q x ERF x R Q=Quantity in tonnes/year=3.15 tonne/year ERF = Environmental Risk Factor = 1.5 R = Environmental Compensation factor = Rs. 30,000 = 3.15 x 1.5 x 30,000 = Rs.14,17,750 ~ Rs. 14.17 lakhs Other waste Estimated other waste stored is 551kg in 6.5 months Environmental Compensation = Q x ERF x R Q = Quantity in tonnes/year = 0.847 tonne/year ERF = Environmental Risk Factor = 0.3 R = Environmental Compensation factor = Rs, 30,000 = 0.847 x 0.3 x 30,000 = Rs. 7623
b) Waste found stored beyond the stipulated period (refer Rule 8 of the HOWM Rules, 2008) Environmental Compensation for Hazardous Waste = Q x ERF x R = 1.406 x 0.1 x 30000 = Rs. 4218 Environmental Compensation for Other Waste = Q x ERF x R = 0.551 x 0.05 x 30000= Rs. 826 Total amount determined for Environmental Compensation and Penalty for violation of Hazardous waste and other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 is [7,00,000 + (14,17,750+7,523+4,218+826)] = Rs. 21,30,417/-............................. ........(IV) 12.4 Total Environmental Compensation
1. As per the available methodology, Environmental Compensation has been calculated for illegal extraction of ground water, for ZLD condition violation and for not managing Haz. Waste as per management as per the HOWM Rules, 2016 however for assessment of the compensation to be recovered for the damage caused, covering the entire period of damage needs detailed survey through expert institutes. Hence, expert institute may be engaged for the detailed study of environmental damage caused by the unit for the entire period to cover the environmental compensation from the unit.
2. Total Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, for ZLD condition violation and for not managing Haz. Waste as per management as per the HOWM Rules, 2016 is as below:
=(I) + (II) + (III) + (IV) = Rs. 1,18,80,000 + Rs. 1,00,740 + Rs. 1,08,60,000 + Rs. 21,30,417 = Rs. 2,49,71,157 The unit is liable to pay total Environmental compensation amount of Rs. 2,49,71,157/-."27
Tribunal's order dated 04.12.2019
20. Joint Committee report dated 03.12.2019 was examined by Tribunal on 04.12.2019 and having noticed the observations and conclusions, Tribunal, in para 7 said:
"7. Thus joint report concludes that the industry is non-complying and the treated effluents from ETP and STPs are not complying with the prescribed norms. It has been observed that even highly acidic effluents are disposed, constantly posing threat of ground water contamination and also to the vegetation. The Effluent Treatment Plants for wood, glass and metal division requires upgradation and will have to work on complete ZLD System and no effluent be allowed to dispose on land. It is also clear that the Hazardous Waste is not properly managed and the unit is not having valid agreement with transport storage and disposal facility. The unit is not having permission from Ground Water Board and thus illegally withdrawing the ground water. Compensation of rupees 2,49,71,157 has been assessed which is on account of non- compliance of ETP and STP norms, improper Hazardous Waste Management and Illegal drawal of ground water."
21. PP relied on a letter issued by CGWA that unit was allowed to extract ground water validly but Tribunal observed that in view of order dated 10.10.2019 passed in OA No. 176/2015, Shailesh Singh vs. Hotel Holiday Regency, Moradabad & Others such permission in over- exploited category area cannot be allowed. Para 6 of order passed in OA No. 176/2015 (supra) was quoted in para 8 of order dated 04.12.2019, which reads as under:
"6. Since the OCS areas have been found to be seriously affected by overdrawal of ground water, regulation of such drawal for commercial purposes cannot be dispensed with for any industry even in industrial area. Availability of water for drinking is a first priority. The 'Precautionary' principle, 'Sustainable Development' principle and the Inter-generational equity are part of life and in absence of replenishment of ground water, unregulated drawl thereof cannot be held to be right of any commercial entity. Shortage of availability of water for commercial purposes cannot be remedied by drawl of groundwater in over exploited, critically exploited and semi- critical exploited (OCS) areas. Water is certainly a scarce resource and the industry has to put up with such scarcity. It is for the industry and the concerned authorities to find out alternative ways and means for sustenance of the industries instead of permitting indiscriminate drawl of groundwater in such areas till situation improves. Alternative means may be shifting to areas where water is not scarce or to processes where water is not required. As already noted, groundwater is depleting in such areas and measures 28 are required to check such depletion. If industries continue to draw ground water without NOC from CGWA as per current guidelines and orders of this Tribunal in OCS areas, the industries will have to face legal consequence of such illegal action."
22. Tribunal also noticed from the report that Block Joya, district Amroha where PP unit is situated was in the category of 'semi-critical' in 2011 but due to continued indiscriminate abstraction of ground water, the level has gone down, bringing the area in question in the category of 'over- exploited' in 2013 and that has continued in the report of 2017 also. In view of above observations, Tribunal did not approve the defence of PP and stand of Regulators; instead directed Statutory Regulators to take follow up action in accordance with due process of law. Reports dated 22.02.2020, 10.07.2020 and 05.08.2020 pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 04.12.2019
23. Report dated 22.02.2020 was submitted by UPPCB through Chief Environment Officer. It is said that a meeting of joint Committee was held on 26.12.2019 and minutes of the meeting were issued by CPCB vide letter dated 02.01.20220. The minutes show following observations of Committee:
"1. The unit has 04 nos. of manufacturing sections namely, Metal Art ware, Glass Art ware, Wood Art ware and Thermocol Block.
2. Wooden Art ware manufacturing section with 15 Ton/Month consented capacity has one Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) of 25 KLPD capacity to treat the industrial effluent. However, the ETP is in-adequate as it does not have Primary Clarifier. Further, Aeration tank was also found un-stabilized during inspection. Also the treated effluent from ETP was found noncomplying w.r.t the stipulated discharge standard of BOD and NH3-N.
3. Glass Art ware manufacturing section with 150 Ton/Month consented capacity has one Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) of 100 KLPD capacity and one Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of 60 KLPD capacity to treat the industrial effluent and domestic effluent respectively. Both ETP as well as STP are in- adequate as both treatment plants do not have secondary biological treatment system which is required to provide requisite treatment to the effluent. The treated 29 effluent of ETP was found noncomplying w.r.t the stipulated discharge standard of NO3-N Cr, Fe, Ni, Se and Zn. The treated effluent from STP was also found non-complying w.r.t the stipulated standard of pH, TSS and BOD.
4. Metal Art ware manufacturing section with 30 Ton/Month consented capacity has one Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) of 175 KLPD capacity and one Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of 60 KLPD capacity to treat the industrial effluent and domestic effluent respectively. Both ETP as well as STP are in- adequate as both treatment plant do not have requisite secondary biological treatment system. The treated effluent from STP was found non-complying w.r.t the stipulated standard of BOD and COD.
5. The unit has one Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of 120 KLPD capacity at Residential colony to treat the domestic effluent. The STP is found inadequate as it does not have requisite secondary biological treatment system. The treated effluent from STP was found non-complying w.r.t the stipulated standard of BOD."
24. Committee observed that in absence of secondary biological treatment system/Primary Clarifier, installed ETPs/STPs are inadequate and would not provide requisite treatment to the effluent/wastewater to meet stipulated effluent discharge standards. In absence to requisite treatment systems in ETPs/STPs, dilution of these ETPs/STPs through fresh water could not be ruled out. Consequently, Committee made following recommendations:
"a. The UPPCB shall issue directions following appropriate procedure within 30 days for closure of the manufacturing operations excluding Thermocol manufacturing section till installation and commissioning of adequate ETPs/STPs by the unit. The unit shall be directed to install and commission two stages (Physical primary treatment followed by secondary biological treatment of adequate capacity) ETPs and STPs to provide requisite treatment to effluent and ensure to meet the prescribed effluent discharge standards. The unit shall set the time bound Action plan approved by UPPCB.
b. UPPCB shall also levy Environmental Compensation (Rs.
2,49,71,157/-) as calculated by the Joint committee in its inspection report dated 03.12.2019 accepted by the Hon'ble NGT vide order dated 04.12.2019.
c. UPPCB shall also issue appropriate direction within 30 days for compliance of the recommendations of Joint inspection 30 report and file the Compliance Report to NGT and inform CPCB accordingly."
25. Thus, the report showed that ETPs/STPs installed by PP did not have requisite processes, necessary for effective treatment of domestic/industrial effluents and PP was advised to install two stages ETPs/STPs i.e., Primary Physical Treatment system followed by Secondary Biological treatment of requisite capacity.
26. Next is report dated 10.07.2020 submitted by CPCB. It also reiterated what was stated in the report dated 22.02.2020 submitted by UPPCB. Further, it referred to show cause notices issued by UPPCB to PP vide letter dated 08.06.2020 to deposit environmental compensation of Rs. 1,01,80,740/- for illegal abstraction of ground water without NOC; dated 08.06.2020 for deposit of environmental compensation of Rs. 1,08,60,000/- computed for non-compliance of effluent discharge norms/absence of adequate treatment unit/non-implementation of Zero Liquid Discharge (hereinafter referred to as 'ZLD'); dated 09.06.2020 directing to deposit environmental compensation of Rs. 21,30,417/- computed for non-compliance of Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2020 directing PP to take NOC from CGWA for abstraction of ground water for industrial purposes within 15 days or to make alternative arrangements and submit compliance report. Show cause notices also said, if PP failed to respond or respond inappropriately, then closure order shall be passed. Report further said that UPPCB vide letters dated 30.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 declined request of PP to waive off environmental compensation or revisit the same.
27. Report dated 05.08.2020 is in furtherance of CPCB's report dated 10.07.2020. PP vide letter dated 21.07.2020 requested CPCB to reconsider environmental compensation on the basis of NOC dated 23.04.2020 issued 31 by CGWA for extraction of 155KLD ground water but only for domestic and drinking purposes and not for industrial purposes, and Form 10 of Hazardous Waste Disposal. Consequently a meeting was held in virtual mode on 30.07.2020 and CPCB forwarded minutes of the meeting vide OM dated 04.08.2020. Pursuant thereto, UPPCB, vide e-mail dated 01.08.2020 submitted compliance status of PP. The said report in para 4 refers to the observations of joint Committee meeting, as under:
".......
a) Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) has issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) vide letter dated nil (23.04.2020: as informed by CGW A) to the unit for ground water extraction of 155 KLD for domestic and drinking purpose only, effective from 21.12.2018 (Annexure-IV). Representative of CGWA informed that NOC was granted on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the unit to use ground water for domestic purpose only and not for industrial purpose. UPPCB confirmed that four bore wells are sealed with concrete structure. However, two of the operational bore wells are located one in industrial premises and other one in residential colony and it could not be ensured that use of ground water is exclusively for domestic purpose.
b) It was informed by UPPCB that the unit is arranging water through tanker for industrial purpose however, source of the same could not be investigated. UPPCB/CGWA was requested to confirm the· source of water used for industrial purpose and operational status of the industry during lockdown period, so that EC can be revised accordingly. The committee was also of the view that the lockdown period from 21.03.2020 to 28.05.2020 may not be considered while calculating EC in case the unit provides documentary evidence of non-operational status during lockdown period to the satisfaction of UPPCB.
c) Considering the NOC received by the unit, Environmental Compensation for illegal withdrawal of ground water has been revised and recalculated by the Joint Committee. Details are given at Para 6.
d) The unit has only submitted the effluent analysis result (Annexure-
V) of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) outlet carried out by NABL accredited laboratory which indicate that effluent quality parameters are within the limit of the stipulated standards, but as per the observations in the joint inspection report, the unit was not having adequate two stage biological treatment system viz, primary clarifier/secondary biological treatment units at ETPs & Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) located at Wooden art ware section, Metal art ware and Glass art ware mfg. section and STP located at residential colony, which are required to provide requisite treatment to the effluent. In absence of the same, it is not possible to achieve prescribed effluent discharge norms, hence possibility of 32 dilution of ETPs with the fresh water could not be ruled out. Also, the report received from the unit is of July, 2019, which mentions that the sample is taken from ETP and has not specified the division of the unit.
e) On this matter, UPPCB Official confirmed that the unit has installed requisite primary clarifier/secondary biological treatment units and UPPCB has verified the same through inspection, which was carried out after joint inspection. UPPCB was requested to submit the point wise compliance status of the unit as per inspection carried out by UPPCB based on which the Show cause notice of the unit was withdrawn vide letters dated 8.06.2020 (Annexure-VI) and 9.06.2020 (Annexure-VII) along with levying EC.
f) Representative of UPPCB confirmed that as recommended by the Joint Committee, the unit has dismantled the open drain, which was observed during inspection near the SIP located in the residential colony. The unit also annexed a photograph for the same in its letter-dated 21.07.2020.
g) Minor typographical and calculation errors made in the EC calculations were observed by the Joint Committee while making the fresh calculations based on the decisions taken in the meeting. Hence, with agreement of all the joint committee members it was decided to revise the calculated EC amount and the same may be submitted to Hon'ble NGT as Status report before the next date of hearing i.e., 06th August, 2020.
h) The unit vide its letters dated 21.07.2020 has submitted Form-10 for hazardous waste disposal which were not provided at the time of inspection and the same to be in order. Hence, the committee decided to reconsider the EC levied for disposal/handing over hazardous waste to unauthorized place/party subject to verification of Form-10 by UPPCB and accordingly EC amount shall be revised."
28. Recommendations of Committee are mentioned in UPPCB's status report dated 01.08.2020 as under:-
"The UPPCB shall submit detailed point wise compliance report to CPCB against the recommendations made by the joint committee by 01.08.2020, so that the final status report may be prepared along with the revised EC and submitted to Hon'ble NGT before the next date of hearing i.e. 06.08.2020."
29. Consequently, UPPCB in para 5 said that PP has complied with the recommendations of joint Committee report dated 16.10.2019 except the following:
33
"I. Water Consumption of the unit & Analysis result of ground water samples • The unit shall obtain NOC from CGWA for withdrawal of groundwater, as the CGWA NOC for industrial requirements have already been expired on 20.12.2018.
• All treated effluent recycling points should be metered and logbook shall be maintained against each flow meter.
II. For Wooden Art ware mfg. Section:
o The unit shall install flowmeter at recycled water pipeline.
o The unit shall keep and maintain ETP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP and ETP sludge disposal.
III. For Glass Art ware mfg. Section and for STP at Glass Section:
The unit shall keep and maintain ETP and STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP/STP and ETP/STP sludge disposal.
IV. For Metal Art ware mfg. Section and for STP at Metal Section The unit shall keep and maintain ETP and STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the ETP/STP and ETP/STP sludge disposal. The unit shall install flowmeter at recycled water pipeline.
V. For STP at Residential Colony.
The unit shall keep and maintain STP log book record for daily dosing of chemicals in physicochemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point, daily sludge generation from the STP and STP sludge disposal.
VI. For Hazardous Waste management Install automatic water sprinkling arrangements, fire alarming systems, flame arresters, smoke /heat detectors, fire extinguishers and other necessary provisions as stipulated under the Guidelines for storage of incinerable hazardous wastes."
30. UPPCB recommended revised quantum of environmental compensation as under:
34
"Environmental Compensation Calculations:
Sr. Environmental Period Formula Calculation No. Compensation
1. For illegal Year: 2018-19 ECGW= Water ECGW= 175 (m3/day ) extraction of consumption per day * (330-155)* 80 (Rs/m3)* Ground water Period beyond the EC rate for illegal 527 * (days)*1 expiry of CGWA extraction of ground =Rs. 73,78,000/- NOC: 21.12.2018 to water (ECRGW) * No. of ..........(a) 30.05.2020 days* Deterrent Factor Year: 2017-18 For illegal annual extraction of 99,691 ECGW= 2.30(m3/day)*8 m3 from 01.10.2017 0 (Rs/ m3)*365(days)* 1 to 30.09..2018, Rs. 67,160/-
(higher than the ......................(b) permitted ground water extraction of 99,000 m3/annum) illegal extraction =(99691-99000)/300 =691/300 =2.3 m3 /day Total EC =(a)+(b) +73,78,000+67,160 =74,45,160
2. For violation from date of EC=PI*N*R*S*LF A) 28.03.2019- of effluent inspection carried (considering deterrent 25.06.2019 discharge/ out by the joint team factor for repeated (EC)=PI*N*R*S*LF)*1 Inadequate and found violation violations) =80*90*250*1.5*1 ETPs/ZLD of ZLD norms dated Where, =27,00,000/- norms as per 28.03.2019 to date of PI=Pollution index of CTO inspection of industrial sector (here- B) 26.06.2019-
2nd inspection of the 80, for red category 23.09.2019
joint team industrial sector),
dated16.10.2019 N=Number of days of (EC=PI * N * S * LF)*2
violation took place =80* 90*250*1.5*1*2
(here-203 days, from =54,00,000/-
28.03.2019 to
16.10.2019) C) 23.09.2019-
R=A factor in Rupees for 16.10.2019
Penalty (R to be taken as (EC = PI* N*R*S*LF) *4
250) = 80*23*250*1.5*1*4
S=Factor for scale of =27,60,000/-
Operation of the facility
(here-1.5, for large scale
industry)
LF=Location factor
(Here-1, for less than 1
million population)
3. For not 1. Financial 1. Financial Penalty 1. Penalty
managing Penalty Rs. 7,00,000/-
Haz. waste as The unit was found 01 lakh per violation of
per violating 07 01 provision of HOWM 2. EC
management provisions (at sl. No. Rules, 2016., Here unit a) For disposal
as per the 2, 3, 5b, 6(B)d, 8, 7 is violating 07 /handing over to
HOWM Rules, and 31) of HOWM provisions unauthorized place /
2016 Rules, 2016. party
2. Environmental
2. Environmental Compensation For Haz. waste
Compensation a) When hazardous No compensation as
The following and other wastes is unit has submitted
violations have been disposed at documentary proof in
considered for unauthorised place or the form of Form 10**
calculation of EC handed over or sold to
unauthorised party For other waste
a) When hazardous = 0.847 x 0.3 x 30,000
and other wastes is For Haz. Waste: = Rs. 7623/-
disposed at EC=Q x ERF x R
unauthorised place Here, b) For waste found
or handed over or Q = Quantity in stored beyond the
sold to unauthorised tonnes/year=3.15 stipulated period
party and tonne/year
35
ERF = Environmental For Haz. waste
b) Waste found Risk factor = 1.406 x 0.1 x 30000
stored beyond the = 1.5 Rs. 4218/-
stipulated period R=Environmental
(refer Rule 8 of the Compensation factor=
HOWM Rules, 2008) Rs. 30,000
For other waste
For other waste: =0.551 x 0.05 x 30000
(a) Estimated other =Rs. 826/-
waste stored is 551
Kg in 6.5 months
EC= Q x ERF x R
Here,
Q=0.847
tonne/year,
ERF=0.3,
R=Rs. 30,000
(b) Waste product
stored beyond the
stipulated period
(refer Rule 8 of the
HOWM Rules,
2008)
For Haz. Waste
=Q x ERF x R
=1.406 x 0.1 x
30000
For other waste
= Q x ERF x R
=0.551 x 0.05 x 30000
Total EC Penalty + EC=7,00,000
+ (7,523 + 4,218 + 826)
=Rs. 7,12,567/-
Total Environmental Compensation (1) + (2) + (3)
= Rs. 74,45,160 + Rs. 1,08,60,000+ Rs. 7,12,567 =Rs. 1,90,17,727/- "
Calculations of Number of days for illegal extraction of Ground water:
From 20.12.2018 to 30.05.2020 (as decided by the committee) including the lockdown period:
Number of days: 11 (Dec. 2018) + 31(Jan) +28 (Feb.) +31 (Mar) +30 (Apr) +31 (May) +30 (June) +31 (July) +31 (Aug) +30 (Sep) +31 (Oct) +30 (Nov) +31 (Dec) +31(Jan) + 29 (Feb)+ 31 (March) + 30 (Apr)+ 30 (May 2020) = 527 days EC for illegal extraction of ground water after 14.11.2019 was calculated without considering the flow meter readings of the two bore-wells as from the records provided by the unit it is clear that the unit has replaced the flow meters on the two bore-
wells twice. Hence, readings provided by them are not acceptable."
31. Consequently, UPPCB's status report said that the Committee recommended environmental compensation of Rs. 74,45,160/- for illegal abstraction of ground water, Rs.1,08,60,000/- for violation of effluent discharge/inadequate ETPs/ZLD norms as per CTO and EC and 36 Rs.7,12,567/- for not managing hazardous waste as per Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016, reducing total amount to Rs.1,90,17,727/-. Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2020
32. All these three reports were considered on 06.08.2020. Tribunal found it appropriate to take note of compliance status as per latest report dated 05.08.2020 filed by CPCB. The relevant extract of compliance status as contained in CPCB report dated 05.08.2020 read with UPPCB status report dated 01.08.2020 has already been extracted above.
33. Having noted the same, Tribunal found that there are serious continuing violations on the part of PP. In para 7 of order dated 06.08.2020, Tribunal said:
"7. In view of the above, not only there are serious continuing violations of environmental norms without corresponding stringent action, the unit appears to have played fraud in obtaining NOC for ground water extraction for industrial purpose by falsely representing that purpose of extraction was residential. Action needs to be taken in this regard as per law of the land. Apart from this aspect, compliance with environmental norms needs to be ensured by the industrial unit which needs to be monitored and cross checked and a further report furnished by the joint Committee through the CPCB. Status of compliance as on 30.11.2020 be filed by 15.12.2020 by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF."
IA No. 273/2020 filed by PP & Tribunal's order dated 03.12.2020
34. PP challenged order dated 06.08.2020 in Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 23355/2020, M/s. C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Others. In the meantime, PP also filed IA No. 273/2020 before Tribunal. PP, however withdrew Appeal from Supreme Court with liberty to pursue Tribunal on the aforesaid IA. Appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 16.11.2020, passing following order:
"Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that I.A. No. 273/2020 was filed by the appellant 37 before the National Green Tribunal for clarification of the order dated 06.08.2020 on the ground that the counsel appearing for the appellant herein was not given an opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal.
Learned senior counsel seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to pursue the application pending before the Tribunal and seek expeditious disposal of the application as there is a likelihood of coercive action being taken against the appellant herein.
We permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal with liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal to pursue the interlocutory application filed for clarification. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty.
The National Green Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said application at the earliest. In case, the application is decided against the appellant, the appellant is at liberty to approach this Court by challenging the said decision and the orders date 04.12.2019 and 06.08.2020."
35. IA 273/2020 was considered by Tribunal. Vide order dated 03.12.2020, IA was rejected. Relevant extract of order contained in para 6, 7 and 8 is reproduced as under:
"6. The application states that upto 2018, there was permission for drawl of ground water for industrial as well as drinking purpose and that thereafter it has not been drawing ground water for industrial purpose. The water requirement was being met from the water recycling plant. This position would have been explained during the hearing on 6.08.2020 but the virtual link for the hearing did not reach the Counsel in time. The link was received by 1 p.m. It is now submitted that no groundwater was extracted for industrial purpose and therefore the observations in the joint Committee report and the order of this Tribunal that after taking groundwater extraction permission for domestic purposes, extraction for industrial purpose was done is erroneous.
7. We have duly considered the above submission. As already noted, the Tribunal had earlier considered the matter on 04.12.2019, after hearing the Counsel for Respondent No. 1, in light of the joint Committee report dated 03.12.2019. In the said report, it was clearly mentioned that apart from other violations, there was illegal extraction of ground water for industrial purpose for which compensation was liable to be paid. Explanation by the unit was that such extraction was justified because a letter had been given to the CGWA for the purpose. Further report dated 20.02.2020 is follow up of earlier action. The Tribunal accordingly accepted the same. Thus, the stand now sought to be taken that the ground water had not been extracted for industrial purpose is in conflict with the earlier stand of the unit itself that extraction was valid because a letter had been filed for permission and is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. There is thus no scope for clarification sought nor any error in the 38 observations of the Committee or in the order of this Tribunal. The application is accordingly dismissed.
8. Vide order dated 06.08.2020, this Tribunal directed compliance of environmental norms to be monitored and cross-checked by the joint Committee and filing of further status of compliance as on 30.11.2020 by 15.12.2020. Let the joint Committee furnish its report accordingly with a further report of water audit of the entire complex (all the units and the residential areas). The joint Committee may also ascertain the status of the quantum of water recycling/refining and the use of energy for the purpose. The water audit component in the report may specially deal with the availability and extent of rational use for residential purpose and separately for industrial purpose." Report dated 29.01.2021 pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 03.12.2020
36. Joint Committee conducted inspection on 10.12.2020 and submitted report dated 29.01.2021 through CPCB and the conclusions drawn therein read as under:
"14.0 Conclusions 14.1 For CTO, ground water and all manufacturing sections
1. As per the previous CTO under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Consent no. 939591) and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Consent No. 927007) issued by UPPCB. which has been expired on 31.12.2019, the unit has permission for production of 150 Ton/Month of wooden art wares, 250 Ton/Month of glass art wares and 200 Ton/Month of metal Art wares. The unit is yet to obtain valid common CTO for all 06 manufacturing sections i.e., Metal Art ware, Glass Art ware, Wood Art ware, Thermocol blocks, Marble Art ware & Corrugated Paper & Carton under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from UP Pollution Control Board.
2. As per the logbook record of borewells from Dec-2019 to Nov-2020, the unit has extracted 49,164 KL of ground water from 02 borewells (refer Table-3) against the permitted abstraction of 46,500 KL, which is violation of condition of NOC issued by CGWA.
3. Analysis result of sample collected from hand pump (near natural pond) showed Fe-1.79 mg/l against 0.3 mg/l and Mn- 0.4 mg/l against 0.3 mg/l of the permissible limit of BIS IS 10500:2012 (permissible limit in absence of alternative source).
4. The unit has not provided flow meters at the consumption points of treated waste water from common STP & treated effluent common-ETP as well as effluent being pumped to Pre- ETP/common-ETP at any individual manufacturing sections.39
- Hence, the quantity of treated waste water from common- ETP and common-STP being utilized in individual sections and quantity of effluent generated from the individual sections could not be assessed clue to unavailability of flow meters.
5. Separate recycling plant located at glass division was found non-operational and waste water stored in the tanks was found stagnant.
6. The quality of water samples collected from overhead storage tank at glass division and glass cutting section tap water does not match with the characteristics of effluent from common-ETP (refer table 10, 11 & 18 for analysis result of collected samples from glass division and common-ETP) indicating possibility of use of fresh water from borewell for industrial purposes.
7. Characteristics of sample collected from the tank for storage of common-ETP treated effluent located at marble section match with the characteristics of sample collected from borewell no.3, indicates that the unit is using fresh water in the manufacturing process also, violating the conditions stipulated in the valid NOC, issued by CGWA.
8. The sludge drying bed of the previous ETP at wooden art ware manufacturing division was found filled with sludge.
14.2 For Pre-ETPs. Common-ETP and Common-STP
1. As per NEERI report (10th December 2020) on Feasibility study for use of ETP/STP Treated water as process water at M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, U.P.
-Over all analysis of samples indicates that the treated water from RO outlet of common-ETP and outlet of Ultra-filtration (UF) of common-STP can be used for different processes in the industry. Further, strict monitoring of treated waste water is required on regular basis to ensure continued desired quality of treated waste water.
2. The unit has not installed flow meter at inlet and outlet of both Pre-ETPs i.e., for treatment of effluent generating from electrophoretic. lacquering & paint booth processes and for treatment of floor washing effluent.
3. At common-ETP, the unit has not provided flow meter at outlet of secondary biological treatment system, permeate of RO, MEE condensate and ATFD condensate hence, quantity of final treated effluent could not be assessed due to unavailability of flowmeters.
4. As per the characteristics of sample collected from treated water tank (which receives treated effluent from RO- permeates, MEE condensate and ATFD condensate), it is contaminated with cyanide which ranges from 0.3 mg/l (RO-1
-Permeate) to 5.0 mg/l (MEE condensate).40
5. Concentration of cyanide in RO-1-Permeate and MEE condensate of common-ETP, indicates usage of cyanide salt in process whereas the unit representative denied for usage of same during joint inspection.
6. As RO-3 reject is being fed to MEE, significant reduction in concentration of cyanide and nickel is observed in RO-3-reject from 8.8 mg/l to 4.4 mg/l and 66.13 mg/l to 43.07 mg/l in MEE feed respectively which could not be explained.
7. Almost negligible COD and BOD reduction is observed in common- ETP up to advanced tertiary system i.e., of ultrafiltration/before RO.
8. Increase in CN concentration from 6.3 mg/l (in raw effluent) to 7.5 mg/l (in outlet of ultrafiltration system/before RO), indicates very less efficiency of primary and secondary treatment system.
9. As per the logbook data provided for effluent being treated in common ETP and treated effluent being recycled in wood, glass and metal divisions shows that the quantity of treated effluent recycled is more than the quantity of effluent fed/treated in ETP, which is contradictory and seems that about 11.09 KLD of fresh water being added in treated effluent storage tanks and the unit is in violation of conditions imposed in NOC issued by CGWA.
10. The quality of treated sewage is non-complying w.r.t. on land discharge norms w.r.t. pH-5.9 against 6.5 to 8.5. The pH needs to be brought within permissible limit of 6.5 to 8.5; for use in horticulture.
14.3 For Water Audit
1. The unit is withdrawing about 8.08 KL to 30.06 KL per day of fresh water more than the fresh water requirement and the point of utilization of this excess quantity could not be identified due to unavailability of flow meters at individual utilization points.
-However, the excess quantity of effluent/sewage being recycled in process section than the quantity of effluent/sewage being treated indicates that dilution of fresh water is being made in treated water tank, which is recycled for industrial purposes.
2. Exact quantity of treated effluent from common-ETP and waste water from common-STP being utilized in process as well as toilet flushing could not he identified due to unavailability of flow meters at individual utilization points.
15. Recommendations:
1. The unit shall obtain common consent to operate for all 06 manufacturing sections i.e., Metal Art ware, Glass Art ware, Wood Art ware, Thermocol blocks, Marble Art ware & Corrugated Paper & Carton under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from UP Pollution Control Board.
2. Unit shall ensure, no fresh water is used for industrial process and comply with the conditions laid down in NOC of CGWA.41
3. The unit shall engage an expert institute to carry out detailed water audit of the unit for detailed study of total actual water consumption & recycling of treated wastewater.
4. For carrying out factual water audit, unit shall ensure metering at all and individual treated waste water consumption points at each manufacturing section to ascertain actual water consumption in each process as well as for domestic purpose and maintain logbook for the same.
5. The unit shall install flow meters at inlet and outlet of both Pre-ETPs i.e., for treatment of effluent generating from electrophoretic, lacquering and paint booth processes and for treatment of floor washing effluent.
6. For common-ETP, the unit shall install flow meters at outlet of secondary biological treatment system, permeate of RO, MEE condensate and ATFD condensate.
7. The unit shall dispose of the sludge from sludge drying bed of the previous ETP at wooden art ware manufacturing division, to TSDF site.
8. Presence of cyanide upto 5.0 mg/l in treated effluent from common-ETP is observed; hence, human contact shall be strictly avoided during the recycle/re-use of common ETP treated effluent.
9. The unit shall check pH of treated sewage and maintain it in the range of 6.5-8.5 before pumping for horticulture use and FC concentration should he brought down below 1000 MPN/100 mL."
Objections dated 03.02.2021 filed by PP to report dated 10.12.2020 (report is actually dated 29.01.2021 and 10.12.2021 is the date of inspection)
37. PP referred to report as dated 10.12.2020 though it is the date of inspection and report is dated 29.01.2021. PP submitted a point-wise reply to Committee's report as Annexure 5 to its objections which read as under:
"
S. Recommendation Our Comments
No.
14.1 For CTO, ground water and all manufacturing sections
1. As per the previous CTO Renewal applications have under the Water (Prevention already been filed and is & Control of Pollution) Currently pending with the Act.1974 (Consent no. UPPCB. The UPPCB has indicated 939591) and the Air in its letter dated 09.12.2020 that (Prevention & Control of the same will be processed in Pollution) Act, 1981 (Consent accordance with law, after the No. 927007) issued by inspection.
42 UPPCB which has been expired on 31.12.2019, the unit has permission for production of 150 Ton/Month of wooden art wares, 250 Ton/Month of glass art wares and 200 Ton/Month of metal Art wares. The unit is yet to obtain valid common CTO for all 06 manufacturing sections i.e. Metal Art ware, Glass Art ware. Wood Art ware, Thermocol blocks, Marble Art ware & Corrugated Paper & Carton under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from UP Pollution Control Board. 2. As per the logbook record of The 46,500 KL per year limit is borewells from Dec-2019 to based on 155 KLD for 300 days Nov-2020, the unit has only. However, the unit has a extracted 49,164 KIL of residential colony, where it is ground water from 02 acknowledged that 350 persons borewells (refer Table-3) are living all year, i.e. for 365 against the permitted days and the CGWA itself states abstraction of 46,500 KL, that for residential units, one which is violation of must consider 135 condition of NOC issued by l/person/day. This translates to CGWA 65*135*350)= 3071.25 KL. Thus, inclusive of this 3071.25 KL, the total requirement going by CGWA norms is 49,571.25 KL. Thus, the extraction of 49,164 KL is within this calculation limit going by CGWA norms. The unit is proceeding to request the CGWA to clarify in terms of its approval granted to the unit dated 23.04.2020. 3. Analysis result of sample The hand pump being mentioned collected from hand pump here is located outside the factory (near natural pond) showed premises and it not used by us. Fe-1.79 mg/l against 0.3 This is public/community hand mg/l and Mn-0.4 mg/l pump. This public/community against 0.3 mg/l of the hand pump pipe casing is of permissible limit of BIS IS galvanized /mild steel pipe due to 43 10500:2012 (permissible which over a period of time iron (Fe) limit in absence of content may increase. alternative Source). There is no similar problem with the Borewell 3 & 4 located inside our premises since the pipe casing is of PVC. (As per the analysis report by CPCB). (Refer Table no. 7)
4. The unit has not provided Unit has already undertaken this flow meters at the exercise and is ongoing consumption points of installation.
treated waste water from common STP & treated effluent common-ETP as well as effluent being pumped to Pre-ETP /common-ETP at any individual manufacturing sections -
Hence, the quantity of treated waste water from common-ETP and common-
STP being utilized in individual sections and quantity of effluent generated from the individual sections could not be assessed due to unavailability of flow meters. 5. Separate recycling plant The recycling plant was in
located at glass division was breakdown condition on that found non-operational and day of inspection and is working waste water stored in the as on date.
tanks was found stagnant.
6. The quality of water samples This is not accurate because the collected from overhead following tables from the Joint storage tank at glass Inspection Report at internal pages division and glass cutting 17, 13- 14, 34 confirm that the section tap water does not parameters of the water in the match with the storage tank at glass division and characteristics of glass cutting section is similar to effluent from common the RO permeate (treated water) ETP (refer table 10, 11 & 18 and not fresh water:
for analysis result of collected samples from glass Most of the parameters for the RO division and common-ETP) permeate (treated water) are in the indicating possibility of Below Detection Limit (BDL) range. use of fresh water from Further, for instance, fresh water borewell for industrial does not have any Copper (Cu) but purposes. there is Cu content in the RO 44 permeate, which is also seen in the glass division tank. Similarly, fresh water does not have Nickel (Ni) or Analysis Chart Parameter Glass cutting RO Fresh section Permeate Water As BDL/0.01/0.02 BDL 0.04/BDL Cd BDL/BDL/BDL BDL BDL/BDL Cr BDL/BDL/BDL BDL BDL/BDL Cu 0.03/0.04/0.32 0.13 BDL/BDL Fe 0.4/0.44/0.53 0.03 0.03/0.1 Mn 0.09/0.09/0.78 BDL 0.12/0.21 Ni 0.02/0.04/0.55 0.02 BDL/BDL Pb 1.2/1.52/0.02 BDL BDL/BDL Sb BDL/BDL/BDL BDL BDL/BDL Se BDL/BDL/BDL BDL BDL/BDL V 0.13/0.15/0.13 0.12 BDL/BDL Zn BDL/0.05/2.05 BDL 0.5/BDL Vanadium (V), but this is seen in the RO-permeate and thus, also seen in the glass division tank. 7. Characteristics of sample For the same reasons as above, collected from the tank this is also not accurate because for storage of common the following tables from the Joint ETP treated effluent Inspection Report at internal pages located at marble section 17, 13-14, 23 confirm that the match with the parameters of the water in the characteristics of sample storage tank at the marble section collected from borewell is similar to the RO permeate no.3, indicates that the unit (treated water) and not fresh is using fresh water in the water. manufacturing process also, violating the conditions stipulated in the valid NOC, issued by CGWA. 8. The sludge drying bed of the This ETP in wood section had previous ETP at wooden art already been closed as the unit had ware manufacturing division installed common treatment plants, was found filled with sludge. and effluent from wood section is pumped to the common pre- treatment plant. The sludge was kept for drying naturally during the joint team inspection. The sludge drying bed has been cleaned and sludge has been sent to sludge storage room.
14.2 For Pre-ETPs. Common-ETP and Common-STP
1. As per NEERI report Joint Committee has confirmed (December 2020) on that treated water is being used Feasibility study for use of for industrial purpose. Unit will ETP/STP Treated water as 45 process water a MIS C.L. continue monitoring to ensure Gupta Exports 1 Pvt. Ltd.. desired quality of treated water.
Amroha, U.P. - Overall
analysis of samples
indicates that the treated
water from RO outlet of
common-ETP and outlet of
Ultra-filtration (UF) of
common-STP can be used
for different processes in
the industry. Further, strict
monitoring of treated waste
water is required on regular
basis to ensure continued
desired quality of treated
waste water.
2. The unit has not installed Unit has already installed the
flow meter at inlet and flow meters at inlet and outlet
outlet of both Pre-ETPs i.e. of both Pre-ETPs for treatment
for treatment of effluent of effluent 2 generating from
generating from electrophoretic, lacquering and
electrophoretic, lacquering & paint booth processes and for
paint booth processes and treatment of floor washing
for treatment of floor effluent.
washing effluent.
3. At common-ETP the unit Unit has already installed the flow
has not provided meter at outlet of secondary
flowmeter at outlet of biological treatment system,
secondary biological Permeate of RO, MEE condensate
treatment system, and ATFD condensate.
permeate of RO, MEE
condensate and ATFD
condensate hence,
quantity of final treated
effluent could not be
assessed due to
unavailability of flowmeters.
4. As per the characteristics of It is a completely closed loop
sample collected from system and no human contact is
treated water tank (which allowed directly on the treated
receives treated effluent water. Even the persons working in
from RO permeates, MEE the plating division are
condensate and ATFD provided with PPE such as
condensate), it is gloves & goggles.
contaminated with
cyanide which ranges
from 0.3 mg/l (RO- I
Permeate) to 5.0 mg/l
(MEE condensate).
46
5. Concentration of cyanide Unit does not use cyanide salt in in RO-I-Permeate and MEE the treatment.
condensate of common-
ETP, indicates usage of
cyanide salt in process
whereas the unit
representative denied for
usage of same during
joint inspection.
6. As RO-3 reject is being fed to The Parameters vary depending
MEE, significant reduction in upon the inlet pollution load. The
concentration of cyanide and RO-3 reject is collected in a 20 KL
nickel is observed in RO-3- storage tank and fed into the Multi
reject from 8.8 mg/l to 4.4 Effect Evaporator (MEE). The tank
mg/l and 66.13 mg/l to may contain water collected over
43.07 mg/l in MEE feed period of time and therefore,
respectively which could not parameters may always vary
be explained. when compared to RO-3 reject
water. However, this reject water is
anyway farther treated and fed
back into the industrial process in
a closed loop system. This is not
being is charged in anyway and
the concentration are within
permissible limits.
7. Almost negligible COD and The Biological Oxygen Demand
BOD reduction is observed in (BOD) & Chemical Oxygen Demand
common ETP up to advanced (COD) Concentration are further
tertiary system i.e. of reduced to negligible level through
ultrafiltration/before RO. RO/ MEE treatment in the common-
ETP from which treated effluent
recycle into various process.
8. Increase in CN concentration There could be variation in the
from 6.3 mg/l in raw inlet and outlet concentration.
effluent) to 7.5 mg/l (in outlet However, UF traded effluents of ultrafiltration system passed through three stage RO /before RO), indicates very MEE plant through which less efficiency of primary concentration comes at and secondary treatment negligible level. system.
9. As per the logbook data The Joint Inspection Report at provided for effluent being internal pages 15, 18, 20 and 37 treated in common ETP and confirms that treated water from treated effluent being common STP and common-STP is recycled in wood, glass and being used for industrial processes. metal divisions shows that However, the Report notes at the quantity of treated internal Pages 120, 32-33 that effluent recycled is more there is a mismatch in the quantum than the quantity of of treated water being pumped 47 effluent fed/treated in back for industrial use versus the ETP, which is contradictory quantum of input effluent. It is and seems that about submitted that unfortunately, the 11.09 KLD of fresh water Report has missed out another being added in treated element of recycling unit, effluent storage tanks distinct from the common-ETP and the unit is in and common-STP, which violation of conditions separately provides an average imposed in NOC issued by of 28.5 KLD recycled water for CGWA. use in industrial process. This additional element of recycled water is depicted and highlighted in Annexure-A6 and Annexure-A7, Respectively. This line is labelled as "metal process" and corresponds to the water continuously circulated to adjust for evaporation losses.
This is in addition to the output of the common-ETP and common-STP.
Once this additional element of recycled water is accounted for, there is no mismatch in the quantum of treated water being pumped back for use versus the quantum of input effluent.
10.The quality of treated This is already being sewage is noncomplying undertaken and the unit will w.r.t. on land discharge continue monitoring the same. norms w.r.t. pH-5.9 The unit has installed auto pH against 6.5 to 8.5. The pH correction system to maintain pH in needs to be brought range 6.5 to 7.5 at outlet of STP.
within permissible limit The unit has also installed
of 6.5 to 8.5; for use in chlorination system for controlling
horticulture. FC concentration below
100OMPN/100ml. Copy of the
photograph confirming the same is
annexed herewith as Annexure-A4.
14.3 For Water Audit
1. The unit is withdrawing The Joint Inspection Report at
about 8.08 KL to 30.06 KL internal pages 120, 43 has
per day of fresh water more considered 10 /person/day as
than the fresh water the norm for
requirement and the point of employees/workers, whereas as
utilization of this excess per the published CGWA norms
quantity could not be it is 30 1/person/day. Since 10
identified due to /person/day for
unavailability of flow meters bathrooms/flushing purposes
at individual utilization has been separately accounted
points. - 1 However the for (from STP), one must
excess quantity of consider 20 /person/day in this
48
effluent/sewage being case (i.e., 30-10). If this
recycled in process section discrepancy is corrected, the
than the quantity of total requirement as per CGWA
effluent/sewage being norms would be 158.75 KLD.
treated indicates that Whereas the unit is admittedly
dilution of fresh water is withdrawing only 114.08 KLD
being made in treated water of groundwater (Report at
tank, which is recycled for internal page 49) and thus,
industrial purposes. there is no excess water being
withdrawn. The unit is
withdrawing significantly
lesser water than the norm for
domestic/drinking use. No
groundwater is used for
industrial purpose.
2. Exact quantity of treated Unit has already undertaken this effluent from common ETP exercise and installation is and waste water from ongoing.
common STP being utilized
in process as well as toilet
flushing could not be
identified due to
unavailability of flow
meters at individual "
utilization points.
38. Further PP in para 6 of the objections said that there are some factual discrepancies in the report dated 10.12.2020 and the said discrepancies pointed in para 6a and 6b are:
"a. The Joint Inspection Report at internal pages 120, 43 has considered 10 l/person/day as the norm for employees/workers, whereas as per the published CGWA norms it is 30 l/person/day. Since 10 l/person/day tor bathrooms/flushing purposes has been separately accounted for (from STP), one must consider 20 l/person/day in this case (i.e., 30-10). If this discrepancy is corrected, the total requirement as per CGWA norms would be 158.75 KLD. Whereas the unit is admittedly withdrawing only 114.08 KLD of groundwater (Report at internal page 49) and thus, there is no excess water being withdrawn. The unit is withdrawing significantly lesser water than the norm for domestic/drinking use; and b. The Joint Inspection Report at internal pages 15, 18, 20 and 37 confirms that treated water from common-STP and common-STP is being used for industrial processes. However, the Report notes at internal pages 120, 32- is a mismatch in the quantum of treated water being pumped back for industrial use versus the quantum of input effluent. It is submitted that unfortunately, the Report has missed out 49 another element of recycling unit, distinct from the common-ETP and common-STP, which separately provides an average of 28.5 KLD recycled water for use in industrial process. This additional element of recycled water is depicted and highlighted in Annexure-A6 and Annexure-A7, respectively. This line is labeled as "metal process" and corresponds to the water continuously circulated to adjust for evaporation losses. This is in addition to the output of the common-ETP and common-STP. Once this additional element of recycled water is accounted for, there is no mismatch in the quantum of treated water being pumped back for use versus the quantum of input effluent."
39. PP further said that part payment of environment compensation was deposited Rs. 44,76,167/- and request has been made to waive off the remaining amount which is pending before UPPCB for finalization. PP has otherwise complied with all requirements and, therefore, no further action be taken.
Tribunal's order dated 04.02.2021
40. Report dated 29.01.2021 as well as objections dated 03.02.2021 of PP were considered by Tribunal 04.02.2021. Tribunal after considering objections accepted Committee's report dated 29.01.2021 with certain modifications and sought further compliance report. Relevant extract of order dated 04.02.2021 contained in para 11, 12 and 13 read as under:
"11. From the joint Committee report comprising CPCB, State PCB, CGWA and the District Magistrate, it is clear that the respondent unit continues to be non-compliant in terms of environmental norms. It has yet to obtain a valid consent to operate for six manufacturing sections under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It has extracted ground water illegally beyond the permitted limit. The water samples were found to be non-compliant. Flow meters have not been installed at the consumption points of the treated waste water, making it difficult to assess the compliance in that regard. The treated water was found to be contaminated with cyanide beyond permissible limit. Primary and secondary treatment systems were not adequate. Water audit could not be conducted on account of non- availability of separate meters
12. The response of the unit in denying that samples had cyanide beyond permissible limit or that deficiencies found by the joint Committee did not exist is self-serving denial and no ground to reject the joint Committee report. Water audit is to be independently conducted by the statutory regulator and not 50 by the unit. To that extent observation of the Committee is modified. The remedial action has to be taken by the unit in the light of the deficiencies found, including steps to ensure that the water does not contain cyanide. Claim for certain compliances after the report, like installation of flow meters or treatment of sewage needs to be checked up by the joint Committee. Till the satisfactory compliance takes place, including recovery of the assessed compensation, the unit cannot be allowed to function.
13. Let the joint Committee, alongwith a representative from IIT Roorkee, further verify the compliance status including the fact that no waste water injection in the ground water is taking place so that the ground water is not contaminated by injection of any waste water, in view of the fact that cyanide and other heavy metal have been found in the samples. Water audit may be got conducted by the CPCB. Assessment of compensation may be looked into jointly by CPCB and the State PCB. The joint Committee may furnish further status report as on 20.4.2021, on or before 15.05.2021 by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. A copy of such report may also be provided to the industrial unit in question for its response, if any, before the next date."
Report dated 30.07.2021 pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 04.02.2021
41. Pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 04.02.2021, a joint inspection was carried out by a team comprising officials of CPCB, UPPCB, CGWB, IIT Roorkee and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amroha between 30.06.2021 to 02.07.2021 and submitted report dated 14.07.2021 to CPCB and CPCB submitted this report to Tribunal vide letter dated 30.07.2021, summarizing compliance status of PP as under:
"Compliance status of the unit may be summarized as follows:
1. As per analysis results, the STP inlet is not a representative sample of sewage as it shows significant concentration of BOD (1720 mg/l), COD (5158 mg/l) and heavy metals (CN-3.19 mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni- 10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l), which are not representing the characteristics of sewage and indicates the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic sewage. The average characteristics are similar to the untreated effluent of the industry at Pre-ETP-1 which indicates that it mostly constitutes of industrial effluent.
2. STP inlet has significant concentration of heavy metals.
Whereas, 100% reduction in Cyanide (from 3.19mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction in Chromium (from 1.45mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction in Lead (from 3.44mg/l to BDL), 99% reduction in Nickel (from 10.42mg/l to 0.06mg/l), 99.8% reduction in Zinc (from 17.35mg/l to 0.02mg/l), 51 99.8% reduction in Iron (from 75.6mg/l to 0.06mg/l), 99.6% reduction in Copper (from 7.18mg/l to 0.03mg/l) in absence of any specific heavy metal removal unit indicates that the compliance of STP outlet is doubtful.
3. As per the analysis results of treated sewage from common-STP outlet, concentration of pH-7.2, Oil & Grease- BDL, BOD- 02mg/l, COD- 21mg/l, Fe-0.08 mg/l, Mn-0.05 mg/l, Ni-0.06 mg/l, V- 0.12mg/l, Pb-BDL, Cyanide- BDL, As-0.04mg/l, Cd-BDL, Co- BDL, Cr- BDL, Cu-0.03mg/l, Sb-BDL, Se-BDL and Zn-0.02mg/l has been found, this is being recycled for utilization in domestic and, utility purpose within different manufacturing sections of unit as well as in colonies.
4. The unit has been granted NOC from U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt, of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 03 Borewells for industrial purpose, which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. Now, the previous NOC issued by CGWA for abstraction of 155KLD ground water for domestic purpose, which was valid till 21.12.2021, stands invalid.
5. The Unit has not maintained separate data for STP sludge generation as well as disposal. Unit shall ensure to maintain separate logbook for STP sludge generation and considering presence of heavy metals at STP inlet, the unit shall ensure disposal of the STP sludge to TSDF.
6. The unit has submitted a copy of report prepared by NEERI, Nagpur on "Water Quality Audit Report for M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, U.P." based on the study conducted by NEERI during the month of March-2021, which contains the assessment of water quantity used in various sections followed by water quality analysis, ensuring sustained operation of treatment systems and making water suitable.
7. The unit has deposited total Rs. 1,16,39,727/- against the total imposed EC amount of Rs. 1,90,17,727/-. The remaining EC amount of Rs. 73,78,000/-, which was imposed for the period of 21.12.2018 to 30.05.2020 (Year: 2018-19) beyond the expiry of CGWA NOC considered to be waived off as the unit has now been granted NOC from U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 03 Borewells for industrial purpose, having validity from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026.
8. Considering the observations on Water Audit of the unit, it can be concluded that, average value of fresh water withdrawal & supply to different sections, treated waste water recycled from Common STP in toilet flushing, treated waste water recycled from Common ETP, total sewage generation/sent to Common STP and Total trade effluent (industrial effluent) generation/sent to Common ETP for the month of March-2021 (as per NEERI report), average values of 05 months (from Feb-21 to June-21) and values observed on the first day of joint 52 inspection i.e. 30.06.21 by joint committee are indicating the same trend. Some marginal difference is may be due to variation of worker's strength or season."
42. A detailed joint inspection report dated 14.07.2021 is Annexure IV to CPCB's letter dated 30.07.2021. Though, conclusions have been noticed above but we find it appropriate to refer certain aspects stated in detail in joint inspection report dated 14.07.2021. Report stated that during the period of inspection, carried out from 30.06.2021 to 02.07.2021, PP unit had following manufacturing sections in the industrial complex:
a) Glass art ware manufacturing section
b) Metal art ware manufacturing section
c) Wooden art ware manufacturing section
d) Marble art ware manufacturing section
e) Thermocol block manufacturing section
f) Corrugated sheet & carton manufacturing section
43. Further observations of joint Committee, in joint inspection report dated 14.07.2021, are:
i) PP unit had two Pre-ETP, i.e., Pre ETP-1 and Pre ETP-2; One Common ETP; One Common STP; One Effluent recycling plant in Glass art ware section (for internal recycle) and one Effluent recycling plant in Marble art ware section (for internal recycle).
ii) Capacity of treatment plant above was as under:
a) Pre-ETP 1 - 25 KLD
b) Common ETP - 150 KLD
c) Common STP - 250 KLD
iii) Unit completed installation of flow meters in all sections and made them operational by the end of January 2021.53
iv) All data/log books regarding water abstraction, utilization, effluent generation and reuse/recycle were collected and analysed for the period of February 2021 to June 2021.
v) Total 87 numbers of electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) at all points of water/waste water utilization and generation, i.e., groundwater extraction points, water distribution lines to all the different sections of unit, inlet, outlet and other different locations of Pre-ETPs/Common-ETP/Common-STP, treated wastewater utilization points from Pre-ETPs/Common-ETP/Common-STP to all different sections of the unit and wastewater generation points of different sections of the unit were installed.
44. Consent to Operate under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 were obtained by PP valid for trial and operation of unit as per following details:
(a) Date of Consent to Operate - 18.06.2021
(b) Validity period-09.06.2021 to 30.06.2021
(c) Quantum of production division-wise:
(i) Metal art ware - 200 MT/month
(ii) Glass art ware - 250 MT/month
(iii) Wood art ware - 150 MT/month
(iv) Marble art ware - 345 MT/month
(v) Corrugated Boxes - 500 MT/month
(vi) Thermocol Block/Slab - 345 MT/month
45. The consent was granted with a clear condition that its extension shall base upon the compliance status found by joint Committee and the observations, conclusions and recommendations thereof.
46. Since inspection had continued till 02.07.2021, the consent was extended up to 02.07.2021 vide Consent to Operate order dated 54 30.06.2021 clearly stating that unit shall cease to operate w.e.f.
03.07.2021.
47. Copies of the consent orders show that discharge of effluent up to 175 KLD was allowed from domestic effluent through STP but for industrial effluent it was mentioned to be ZLD through ETP. The domestic effluents parameters allowed by CTO were as under:
Domestic Effluent S. Parameter Standard No. 1 Total Suspended Solids 100mg/l 2 BOD 30 mg/l 3 COD 250mg/l 4 Oil & Grease 10mg/l 5 Quantity of Discharge 175mg/l
48. CTO issued under Section 21/22 of Air Act 1981 gives details of the emissions and air pollution source as under:
"3(b) Air Pollution Source Details
Air Pollution Source Details
S. Air Pollution Type Stack Parameters Height
No. Source of Fuel No.
1 Boiler 4 TPH Wood 01 Particulate Trema Cyclone
Matter Dust Collector
and Stack
Height of 30
meter from
ground level
2 Boiler of 2 Wood 02 Particulate Trema Cyclone
TPH Matter Dust Collector
and Stack
Height of 30
meter from
ground level
3 Thermic Fluid PNG 03 Particulate Cyclone Dust
Heater of 15 Matter Collector and
Lac Kcal Stack Height of
30 meter from
ground level
4 Glass PNG 04 Particulate 54 meters from
Furnace Matter Ground level
5 9 DG sets Diesel 05 Particulate As per EP
Matter Rules, 1986
55
3(c) The emissions by various stacks into the environment
should be as per the norms of the Board
Emission Quality Details Detail
S. Stack Parameters Standard
No. No.
1 01 Particulate Matter 1200mg/NM3
2 02 Particulate Matter 1200mg/NM3
3 03 Particulate Matter 150mg/Nm3
4 04 Particulate Matter 150mg/Nm3
5 05 Particulate Matter As per EP Rules, 1986
49. Samples of effluent were collected from various locations from each manufacturing section, different points of Pre-ETP, Common ETP and Common STP. Groundwater samples were collected from industrial premises as well as outside unit premises. All samples were collected in presence of representative of the units after serving notice dated 01.07.2021 upon PP, copy whereof is Annexure V to the report dated 14.07.2021 which clearly contains endorsement/receipt by the PP.
50. PP, vide letter dated 30.01.2021 informed CPCB that it has sealed with concrete four bore-wells and only two are operational, i.e., bore-well no. 3 and 4. The report mentions details of bore-wells in paragraph 3 as under:
S No Borewell Location Operation/Non- Status as per current joint No. Operational inspection dated 30.06.2021 to 02.07.2021 1 Borewell Residential Dismantled and The borewell found no. 1 Area not in use dismantled 2 Borewell Residential Dismantled and The borewell found no. 2 Area not in use dismantled 3 Borewell Residential Operational Active/in operation (fig 1) no. 3 Area 4 Borewell Glass Div. Operational Active/in operation (fig 2) no. 4 5 Borewell Glass Div. Dismantled and The borewell found no. 5 not in use dismantled 6 Borewell Pump House Dismantled and The borewell found no. 6 not in use dismantled 56
51. PP claims to operate two bore-wells numbers 3 and 4, for abstracting ground water for drinking, domestic and green belt development.
52. NOC dated 23.04.2020 for abstraction of groundwater was issued by CGWA valid from 21.12.2018 to 19.12.2021 permitting abstraction of 155 m3/day/KLD, i.e., 46500 m3/year. NOC mentioned that it is the first renewal and PP was to make recharge of groundwater of 106000 m3/year. NOC was valid only for domestic, drinking and/or greenbelt purposes. The abstraction of groundwater was permitted from three bore-
wells but PP had to install one Piezometer and one Digital Water Level Recorder.
53. Another NOC was issued by Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Department (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWD') vide certificate no. NOC019504 under section 10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWMR Act, 2019'), which is valid up to 07.04.2026. The certificate mentioned that the purpose is 'industrial'. PP was allowed 250m3/day (KLD) groundwater for 300 operational days. i.e., 75,000 m3/annum.
54. Report said that award of NOC for abstraction of groundwater is within the domain of UPGWD under UPGWMR Act, 2019 and CGWA has no role in awarding and renewing NOC in UP after 31.10.2020. Unfortunately this observation has been made ignoring order of Supreme Court whereunder CGWA was constituted under EP Act 1986 and no provincial enactment could have denuded CGWA, of its statutory obligations, powers and duties for regulating ground water.
55. The abstraction of groundwater from bore-well 3 and 4, as per meter reading provided by PP from February 2021 to June 2021 was, as under: 57
"Table 2: Quantity of fresh water consumption from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as per log book submitted by the unit Sr. Month Fresh water abstraction (KL) No. Borewell No. 3 Borewell No.4 Total
1. Feb-2021 2217 856 3073
2. March-2021 2605 899 3504
3. April-2021 2540 867 3407
4. May-2021 2596 890 3486
5. June-2021 2667 895 3562 Total fresh water consumption (KL) (from Feb-2021 to 12625 4407 17032 June-2021 Average freshwater 2525 881.4 3406.4 consumption (KL/month) Average Fresh water 113.54 KLD against consumption per day permitted 250 KLD (as (considering 150 days from per NOC awarded by 01.02.2021 to 30.06.2021) U.P.G.W.D)
56. Quantity of fresh water consumption in different sections of the unit from February 2021 to June 2021 was shown in table 4 as under:
"Table 4: Quantity of fresh water consumption in different sections of the unit, from Feb-2021 to June-2021 Total fresh water (VIP colony) consumption Residential (Wood div.) (Metal div.) (Glass div.) colony) Month FM-4 (Canteen) (General) FM-6 FM-8 FM-5 FM-3 FM-9 FM-7 Feb-2021 549 307 667 448 29 984 83 3067 Mar-2021 579 320 750 438 35 1205 121 3448 Apr-2021 541 326 703 473 39 1143 187 3412 May-2021 561 329 729 423 46 1200 192 3480 June-2021 556 340 727 524 43 1163 206 3559 Total 2786 1622 3576 2306 192 5695 789 16966
57. The difference between abstracted quantity of water and total consumption is 66 KL (17032 KL - 16966 KL) which comes to about 0.39%.
58
58. Piezometer were installed, Rain Water harvesting system (reduced to
10) since quantum of abstraction of groundwater was reduced from 330 m3/day to 155m3/day) were installed and characteristics of groundwater was also as per BIS standards since no other permissible limit is present. Thereafter report has dealt with different divisions separately and it would be appropriate to reproduce findings of joint Committee as under:
"7.0 Observations on manufacturing sections of Glass Art ware, Metal Art ware, Wooden Art ware, Marble Art ware, Thermocol block and Corrugated Sheet & Box 7.1 Observations on Glass Art ware Manufacturing Section
1. During the joint inspection, the glass art ware manufacturing section was found operational. The unit is manufacturing Glass art wares using silica sand, soda ash, limestone and feldspar as a raw material.
2. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Glass Art ware-250 Ton/Month, for trial production.
3. Monthly production data from Jan-2021 to June-2021 of glass art wares as submitted by the unit is as below:
Table 7: Production of Glass art wares from Jan-21 to June-21 as submitted by the unit Sr. Month Production of Production No. Glass art capacity wares (Ton) permitted as per expired CTO 1. Jan-2021 243
2. Feb-2021 237 250 Ton/Month 3. March-2021 232 4. April-2021 226 5. May-2021 230 6. June-2021 236
4. To fulfill the fresh water requirement for drinking purpose in this section, the unit has provided three tanks of 5000 lit each, making total 15,000 lit storage capacity.
5. The unit has 02 nos. of PNG/Propane gas fired Glass Melting Furnace (operating at 1500°C-melting point of glass), 02 nos. of float bath (glass from the furnace gently flows over the refractory spout on to the mirror-like surface of molten tin, starting at 1100 °C and leaving the float bath as solid ribbon at 600 °C), 03 nos. of annealing furnace, 07 nos. of chakkas (grinding-for removing sharp edges) and 02 nos. of drilling sections.59
6. Glass art wares manufacturing process comprises of raw material storage, batch mixing, lifting to furnace hopper, charging through DOG house, melting furnace (1470-1500 °C), refining (@1260°C), working bay (@ 1180-1220°C), blowing, annealing, inspection, wire cutting, grinding, etching and packing.
7. In this section, the unit has also provision for Zinc, Nickel, Copper plating/phosphating, which is a part of glass art wares section.
8. As informed, the domestic waste water i.e., from toilet flushing of this section is sent to common-STP for treatment & utilization and flow meter FM-13 is installed on the outlet line from glass section to receiving sump of the common-STP. Sewage input from glass division to common STP was 34KL on the first day of joint inspection dated 30th June, 2021.As per the logbook record of FM-13 submitted from Feb-21 to June-21 the average 26KLD sewage is being sent to common STP from this section.
9. Treated waste water from common-STP is then again utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in toilet flushing, utility and boiler (common for all sections). Flow meter FM-17 (41 KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed at outlet of common-STP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-STP to Glass division.
10. Treated waste water from common-STP is stored in overhead 03 nos. of storage tanks of 5000 lit each (total storage capacity-15,000 lit), provided at glass division and then utilized in toilet flushing, utility & boiler. The unit has installed flow meters FM-
24, FM-28 and FM-25 at utilization points of toilet flushing, utility & boiler feed, respectively, from the overhead storage tank.
11. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of the glass division from the common- STP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
Table 8: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-
STP to Glass division along with reading
Flow Flow meter installation point Totalizer Instantaneous Values
meter reading Flow observed on
no. (m3) observed 30.06.2021
(m3/hr)* (KL)
FM-17 STP Treated Wastewater 9446.5 0.0 41
recycle to Glass Division
FM-24 STP Treated Wastewater 407.1 0.0 19
recycle to Glass Division for
Toilet Flushing
FM-25 STP Treated Wastewater 2524.58 1.1 18
recycle to Glass Division for
Boiler
FM-28 STP Treated Wastewater 182.191 0.0 4
recycle to Glass Division for
Utility
*Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.60
12. Value of FM-17 shall be total of values of FM-24, FM-28 and FM-
25. On the first day of joint inspection, i.e., dated 30.06.2021, quantity of total common-STP treated waste water recycled in glass division (FM-17) was found 41 KL. Total of common-STP treated waste water distributed to toilet flushing, for boiler (common for the entire unit) and for utility at glass division was found 19 KL (FM-24), 18 KL (FM-25) and 4 KL (FM-28) respectively, which is total 41 KL. Hence, value of FM-17 is matching with the total of values of FM-24, FM-25 and FM-28.
13. Treated waste water from common-ETP is utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in different processes for manufacturing of glass art wares. Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer), FM-75 is installed at outlet of common- ETP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-ETP to Glass division.
14. Then this treated effluent from common-ETP is stored in 04 nos. of overhead tanks provided at glass division, 01 tank is of 14,000 lit capacity & 03 nos. tanks are of 5000 lit capacity each i.e., total storage capacity is 29,000 lit. From these storage tanks, treated effluent from common-ETP is utilized for different purposes in glass division i.e., chakka, blowing, DM plant, paint booth, phosphating plant and electroplating plant. The unit has installed flow meters FM-67, FM-66, FM-65, FM-64, FM-63 and FM-62 at utilization points of chakka, blowing, DM plant, paint booth, phosphating plant and electroplating plant respectively from the overhead storage tanks at glass division.
15. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of the glass division from the common- ETP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
Table 9: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-
ETP to Glass division along with reading
Flow Flow meter installation Totalizer Instantaneous Values
meter point reading Flow observed
no. (m3) observed on
(m3/hr)* 30.06.2021
(KL)
FM-75 RO treated effluent recycle to 14736.3 0.0 72
Glass Division
FM-62 Supply to Electro Plating unit 5880.31 0.0 42
at Glass Division
FM-63 Supply to Phosphating unit at 869.85 0.0 6
Glass Division
FM-64 Supply to Paint Booth at Glass 517.20 0.0 4
Division
FM-65 Supply to DM plant at Glass 595.10 0.0 4.7
Division
FM-66 Supply to Blowing unit at 1497.53 0.0 12
Glass Division
FM-67 Supply to Chakka unit for 186.11 0.0 1.4
makeup at Glass Division
*Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.61
16. Value of FM-75 shall be total of values of FM-62, FM-63, FM- 64, FM-65, FM-66 and FM-67. On the first day of joint inspection i.e., dated 30.06.2021, total common-ETP treated effluent recycled in glass division (FM-75) was found 72 KL. Total of common- ETP treated effluent distributed to Electro Plating unit, Phosphating unit, Paint Booth, DM plant, blowing unit and chakka unit at Glass Division were found 42 KL (FM-62), 6 KL (FM-63), 4 KL (FM-64), 4.7 KL (FM-65), 12 KL (FM-66) and 1.4 KL (FM-67) respectively, which is total 70.1 KL. The difference of 1.9 KL may be due to losses in the different utilization points.
17. The source of effluent generation from glass art ware manufacturing section is as below:
a) Blowing, grinding & drilling process:
Previously, for treatment of effluent generated from blowing, grinding (chakka) and drilling process, the unit had a separate waste water recycling plant comprises of one collection tank, oil & grease skimming tank, settling tank, sand filter, carbon filter and Activated Carbon Filter (ACF), which is located at glass division.
Now, in addition to it, a combine treatment system for treatment and recycling of effluent generated from blowing, grinding & drilling process and the cooling water from die & blowing section has been installed comprising of equalization tank, Flash mixer-1, flash mixer-2, flash mixer-3, flocculation tank, tube settler, storage tank and filter press (for sludge dewatering).
The treatment scheme sequence of this recycling plant, is prescribed below:
"chart omitted"
Treated effluent from this recycling plant is stored in a RCC tank of 70 KL capacity (located under the PNG gas fired glass melting furnace of the glass division) and then it is pumped to overhead storage tank. From this overhead storage tank, the treated waste water is re-used/utilized again in grinding (chakka) and blowing section of Glass division and top up is being made with treated effluent from common-ETP.
The unit has provided Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) at inlets of this recycling plant i.e., FM-71 (102.7KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., dated 30.06.21) and FM-73 (5.2KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., dated 30.06.21) from blowing & grinding section and Chakka section respectively. Unit has also provided Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) at outlets of the treated water storage tank of recycling plant i.e., FM-72 (99.1KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., dated 30.06.21) and FM-74 (4KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., dated 30.06.21) to blowing & grinding section and Chakka section respectively was being 62 recycled through recycling plant of Glass division on the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21.
At the time of joint inspection, the recycling plant was found operational.
b) Plating/phosphating process:
Effluent generated from the plating/phosphating section is being sent to Pre-ETP-1 (25 KLD capacity) for treatment. Details of Pre-ETP is mentioned in Section- 8.0.
18. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) at the utilization points of treated waste water consumption as well as effluent being pumped to Pre- ETPs/common-ETP and also maintaining the logbooks of the same. The unit has submitted logbook data record for all the installed flow meters.
19. As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 provided by the unit, quantity of treated waste water from common- STP/common-ETP utilized and quantity of effluent generation from the glass section is explained in the following diagram:
Uses & distribution of common-STP recycled water in Glass division As per the submitted logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21, total 31.58 KLD of treated sewage is being sent to glass division for toilet flushing, utilities and boiler section and 12.10KLD wastewater is sent back to STP, 17.23 KLD water is used in the process and 2.17 KLD waste water is sent to common-ETP.63
Uses & distribution of Common-ETP (RO treated) recycled water in Glass division As per the submitted logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21, total 63.51 KLD of treated effluent from common ETP is being sent to glass division for utilization in phosphating, electroplating, DM plant, paint booth, blowing, chakka section and total 44.92 KLD wastewater is generated and sent to common ETP & 4.09 KLD to pre ETP 1 for treatment. The difference of 14.5 KLD may be due to consumption of 11.19 KLD in blowing and chakka section and losses in different process.
Total Water/treated waste water utilized in glass division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-3 the fresh water intake to Glass section was 21KL, as per FM-17 the total treated waste water recycled to glass division from common-STP was 41KL and as per FM-75 the total treated effluent recycled to glass division from common-ETP was 72KL, hence the total water input to this section was 134KL.
Total trade/domestic waste water generation from the glass division: As per the value of FM-31(5KL) & FM- 38(47KL) the total effluent generation from the glass division was 52KL and as per FM-13 the total sewage generation from this division was 34KL, hence the total waste water generation from the glass division was 86KL. Total difference of 48KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is due to, 18KL (FM-25) supplied to boiler (common for entire unit), 4KL (FM-28) supplied for utility purpose, 13.4KL (FM-66 + FM-67) used as make up water in blowing & chakka unit of this division (making total of 35.4 KL) and remaining difference of 12.6KL may be due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in glass division. 64
20. Total two samples were collected (1) to check the quality of water being used in the glass division, one sample of water being used in mould cooling and (2) to assess the quality of treated waste water, one sample from the outlet of internal recycling plant of glass division. Analysis result of collected samples from the glass division is presented below.
20. Characteristics of recycled water used in glass division are in line with the characteristics of the treated effluent (refer table 29) which indicates that recycled waste water is used for industrial activity in this section and fresh water is not being used.
7.2 Observations on Metal Art ware Manufacturing Section
1. During joint inspection the metal art ware manufacturing section was found operational.
2. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Metal Artware-200 MT/month, for trial production.
3. Monthly production in data from Jan-2021 to June-2021 of metal art wares as submitted by the unit is as below:
Table 12: Production of Metal art wares from Jan-2021 to June-
2021 as submitted by the unit
65
Sr. No. Month Production of Production capacity permitted as
Metal art wares per expired CTO
(Ton)
1. Jan-21 193
2. Feb-21 190 200 Ton/Month
3. Mar-21 196
4. Apr-21 188
5. May-21 190
6. Jun-21 189
4. To fulfill the fresh water requirement for drinking purpose in this section, the unit has provided three tanks of 5000 lit capacity each, making total of 15,000 lit storage capacity.
5. Manufacturing process comprises of raw material storage, pre-treatment i.e., polishing, phosphating &shot blasting, finishing of goods i.e., powder coating, painting & plating/electrophoresis coating, packing and dispatch.
6. The domestic waste water i.e., from toilet flushing of this section is sent to common- STP for treatment & utilization.
Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer), FM-10 (51KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed on the outlet line from metal section to receiving sump of the common- STP.
7. Treated waste water from common-STP is then again utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in toilet flushing and utility. Flow meter FM-16(35KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed at outlet of common-STP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-STP to Metal division.
8. Treated waste water from common-STP is stored in overhead storage tanks. the unit has provided 03 tanks of 7000 lit capacity each, 02 tanks of 5000 lit capacity each and 02 tanks of 2000 lit capacity each, making total of 35,000 lit storage capacity are provided for storage of treated waste water from common-STP at Metal division.
9. From these storage tanks, water is utilized in toilet flushing and utility. The unit has installed flow meters FM-22 (29KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) and FM-23 (6KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) at utilization points of toilet flushing and utility respectively from the overhead storage tank.
10. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of metal division from the common-STP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
Table 13: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-STP to Metal division along with reading 66 Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter installation reading flow observed observed on no. point (m3) (m3/hr)* 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-16 STP treated 9978.0 2.47 35 wastewater recycle to metal division FM-22 STP treated 3219.1 0.0 29 wastewater recycle to Metal Division for Toilet Flushing FM-23 STP Treated 658.295 1.9 6 Wastewater recycle to Metal Davison for Utility *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
11. Value of FM-16 shall be total of values of FM-22 and FM-23. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, quantity of total common-STP treated waste water recycled in metal division (FM-16) was found 35 KL. Total of common-STP treated waste water distributed to toilet flushing and for utility at metal division was found 29 KL (FM-22) and6 KL (FM-23) respectively, which is total 35 KL. Hence, value of FM-16 is matching with the total of values of FM-22 and FM-23, which indicated treated wastewater is being used in this section for toilet flushing and utility.
12. Treated waste water from common-ETP is utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in different processes for manufacturing of Metal art wares. Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer), FM-76(57KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed at outlet of common-ETP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-ETP to Metal division.
13. Treated effluent from common-ETP is stored in provided 08 nos. of overhead tanks of 5000 lit capacity each, making total of 40,000 lit storage capacity. From these storage tanks, treated effluent from common-ETP is utilized for different purposes in metal division i.e., DM plant, paint booth, phosphating plant and electroplating plant. The unit has installed flowmeters FM-80, FM-79, FM-78 and FM- 77 at utilization points of DM plant, paint booth, phosphating plant and electroplating plant respectively from the overhead storage tanks at metal division.
14. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of metal division from the common-ETP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
67
Table 14: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-ETP to Metal division along with reading Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter installation reading Flow observed on no. point (m3) observed 30.06.2021 (m3/hr)* (KL) FM-76 RO treated 10482.5 9.3 57 effluent recycle to Metal Division FM-77 Supply to 4768.87 0.0 42 Electro Plating unit at Metal Division FM-78 Supply to 872.0 0.0 4.5 Phosphating unit at Metal Division FM-79 Supply to 588.23 0.0 4.2 Paint Booth at Metal Division FM-80 Supply to DM 659.58 0.0 6.3 plant at Metal Division *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
15. Value of FM-76 shall be total of values of FM-77, FM-78, FM-79 and FM-80. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, total common-ETP treated effluent recycled in metal division (FM-76) was found 57 KL. Total of common-ETP treated effluent distributed to Electro Plating unit, Phosphating unit, Paint Booth and DM plant at metal Division were found 42 KL (FM-77), 4.5 KL (FM-78), 4.2 KL (FM-79) and6.3 KL (FM-80) respectively, which is total 57 KL. Hence, value of FM-76 is matching with the total of values of FM-77, FM-78, FM-79 and FM-80 which indicated treated wastewater is being used in this section for different industrial utilization.
16. As informed by the unit representative Ni, Cu, Zn and brass plating are carried out in this section and cyanide is not used in any process within the section.
17. The main source of wastewater generation from this division are from phosphating, electroplating, electrophoresis, paint booth and from floor washing.
18. The waste water generated from:
1. 4.06 KLD effluent generated from electrophoresis and paint booth (lacquering) sections is being sent to Pre-ETP-1 (25 KLD capacity) followed by common-ETP for treatment and
2. 37.64 KLD effluent generated from phosphating & electroplating is directly sent to common-ETP for treatment.68
3. Wastewater from floor washing (0.44 KLD) is sent to Pre-
ETP-2 provided for treatment of effluent generating from floor washing
19. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizers) at the utilization points of treated waste water consumption as well as effluent being pumped to Pre-ETPs and common-ETP and also maintaining the logbooks of the same. The unit has submitted logbook data record for all the installed flow meters.
20. As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 provided by the unit, quantity of treated waste water from common- STP/common-ETP utilized and quantity of effluent generation from the metal section is explained in the following diagram:
Total 46.4 KLD of treated effluent from common ETP is being sent to metal division for utilization in phosphating, 69 electroplating, DM plant and paint booth section and total 37.64 KLD wastewater is generated and sent to common ETP, 4.06 KLD sent to pre ETP 1 and 0.44 KLD sent to pre ETP 2 for treatment. The difference of 4.26 KLD may be due to losses in different process.
Total Water/treated waste water utilized in metal division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-5 the fresh water intake to metal division was 28KL, as per FM-16 the treated waste water recycled to metal division from common-STP was 35KL and as per FM-76 the treated effluent recycled to metal division from common-ETP was 57KL, hence the total water input to this section was 120KL.
Total trade/domestic waste water generation from the metal division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-29(5KL), FM-35(0KL) & FM- 37(48KL) the total effluent generation was 53KL and as per FM-10 the total sewage generation was 51KL, hence the total waste water generation from the metal division was 104KL. The difference of 16KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is attributed to utilization of treated sewage for utility purpose i.e., 6KL (FM-23) and remaining difference of 10KL may be due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in metal division.
21. Sample of treated wastewater being used in metal electroplating process was collected for analysis purpose and to check the quality of treated water being recycled in metal section. Analysis result is presented below.
Table 15: Characteristics of sample collected from metal section-General parameters
21. Characteristics of treated wastewater being used in metal electroplating process are in line with the characteristics of the treated effluent (refer table 29) which indicates that recycled waste water is used for industrial activity in this section and fresh water is not being used.
7.3 Observations on Wooden Art ware Manufacturing Section
1. At the time of inspection, the wooden art ware manufacturing section was found operational. 70
2. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Wood Artware-150 MT/month, for trial production.
3. Monthly production in data from Jan-2021 to June-2021 of wooden art wares as submitted by the unit is as below:
Table 17: Production of Wooden art wares from Jan-2021 to June-
2021 as submitted by the unit
S Month Production of Wooden Production capacity permitted
N. art wares (Ton) as per expired CTO
1. Jan-21 147
2. Feb-21 144 150 Ton/Month
3. Mar-21 146
4. Apr-21 139
5. May-21 141
6. Jun-21 145
4. The unit has common drinking water point and common toilets, located between wooden and marble art ware sections for employees working at wooden and marble sections.
5. To fulfill the fresh water requirement for drinking purpose in wooden and marble art ware sections, the unit has provided two tanks of 5000 lit capacity each, making total of 10,000 lit storage capacity.
6. Manufacturing process of the wooden art ware comprises of log yard, sawing, treatment Process, seasoning, machining, fabrication, finishing, lacquer spray booths/paint booths (total 40 nos.), packing and dispatch.
7. For steam requirement in seasoning process, the unit has one wood chips fired Thermic Fluid Heater (TFH) of 10 lac Kcal/hr capacity, followed by cyclone separator & wet scrubber as Air Pollution Control Device (APCD). Height of the stack attached to this TFH is 40 meters.
8. Treated waste water from common-STP is utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in toilet flushing and utility. Flowmeter FM-18 is installed at outlet of common-STP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-STP to Wood division.
9. Treated waste water from common-STP is stored in one overhead storage tank of 5000 lit capacity provided for storage of treated waste water from common-STP at Wood division.
10. From these storage tanks, water is utilized in toilet flushing and utility. The unit has installed flowmeters FM-26 and FM- 27 at utilization points of toilet flushing and utility respectively from the overhead storage tank.71
11. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of wood division from the common-
STP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
Table 18: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-STP to Wood division along with reading Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter installation reading flow observed observed on no point (m3) (m3/hr)* 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-18 STP Treated 4979.1 0.0 21 Waste water recycle to Wood Division FM-26 STP Treated 1920.5 0.0 18 Waste water recycle to Wood Division for Toilet Flushing FM-27 STP Treated 391.2 2.19 3 Waste water recycle to Wood Division for utility *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
12. Value of FM-18 shall be total of values of FM-26 and FM-27. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, quantity of total common-STP treated waste water recycled in wood division (FM-18) was found 21 KL. Total of common-STP treated waste water distributed to toilet flushing and for utility at wood division was found 18 KL (FM-26) and 3 KL (FM-27) respectively, which is total 21 KL. Hence, value of FM-18 is matching with the total of values of FM-26 and FM-27.
13. The domestic waste water i.e., from toilet flushing of this section is sent to common- STP for treatment & utilization. Common flowmeter FM-12(33 KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed on the outlet line from wood section & outlet line from general section (Office buildings) to receiving sump of the common-STP.
14. Treated waste water from common-ETP is utilized in this section to fulfill the water requirement in different processes for manufacturing of Wooden art wares. Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer), FM-55(9.9 KL, value observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) is installed at outlet of common-ETP, i.e., outlet of treated water storage tank of common-ETP to Wood division.
72
15. Treated effluent from common-ETP is stored in provided 02 nos. of overhead tanks of 5000 lit capacity each, making total of 10,000 lit storage capacity. From these storage tanks, treated effluent from common-ETP is utilized for different purposes in wood division i.e., paint booth as well as in marble division. The unit has installed flowmeters FM-56 &FM-58 at utilization points of paint booth of wood division and FM-59 for utilization in marble division plant from the overhead storage tanks.
16. List of installed electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at different utilization points of wood division from the common- ETP, totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection are as under:
Table 19: List of flow meters installed at utilization points from Common-ETP to Wood division along with reading Flow Flowmeter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter installation point reading Flow observed observed no. (m3) (m3/hr)* on 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-55 RO Treated effluent 1887.3 1.88 9.9 recycle to Wood Division FM-56 Supply to Paint 435.9 0.0 3.1 Booth of Wood Division FM-58 Supply to Paint 513.87 0.0 4.9 Booth of Wood division FM-59 Supply to m a r b l e 182.20 0.0 1 Unit *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
17. Value of FM-55 shall be total of values of FM-56, FM-58 and FM-59. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, total common-ETP treated effluent recycled in wood division (FM-55) was found 9.9 KL. Total of common-ETP treated effluent distributed to Paint booths (02 nos.) at wood division and to marble division were found 3.1 KL (FM-56), 4.9 KL (FM-
58) and 1 KL (FM-59) respectively, which is total 9 KL. The difference of 0.9KL is due to losses. Value of FM-56, FM-58 and FM-59 indicates treated wastewater is utilized for different industrial activities.
18. Source of effluent generation from wood division is lacquer spray booths/paint booths. 5.26 KLD of wastewater generated is being sent to Pre-ETP-1 (25 KLD capacity) for treatment and then further sent to common-ETP.
19. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizers) at the utilization points of treated waste water consumption as well as effluent being pumped to pre- ETPs/common-ETP and also maintaining the logbooks of the same. The unit has submitted logbook data record for all the installed flow meters.
73
20. As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 provided by the unit, quantity of treated waste water from common- STP/common-ETP utilized and quantity of effluent generation from the wood section is explained in the following diagram:
Total 15.49 KLD of treated sewage is being sent to wood division for toilet flushing and utilities and 12.89 KLD wastewater is sent back to STP and 2.60 KLD water may be used in utility or due to losses.
Total 9.08 KLD of treated effluent from common ETP is being sent to wood division for utilization in paint booths (accessories and furniture), corrugation and as make up water in marble section. Total 5.26 KLD wastewater is generated and sent to pre ETP 1 for treatment. The difference of 3.82 KLD may be due to losses in different process.
Total Water/treated waste water utilized in wood marble division: On the first day of inspection dated 74 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-6 the fresh water intake to Wood & Marble division was 18.5KL, as per FM-18 the treated waste water recycled to wood division from common-STP was 21KL and as per FM-55 the treated effluent recycled to wood division from common-ETP was 9.9KL, hence the total water input to this section was 49.4KL.
Total trade/domestic waste water generation from the wood division: As per the value of FM-30 the total effluent generation was 5.2KL and as per FM-12 the total sewage generation was 33KL, hence the total waste water generation from wood division was 38.2KL. The difference of 11.2KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is attributed to utilization of treated sewage for utility purpose i.e., 3KL (FM-27), utilization of treated effluent from common-ETP in marble section as make up water i.e., 1KL (FM-59) and remaining difference of 7.2KL may be due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in wood & marble division.
21. During previous joint inspection dated 10.12.2020, the sludge drying bed of the previous ETP of wood division was found filled with sludge, however during current joint inspection during 30.06.21 to 02.07.21, the same was found empty. As informed by the unit representative, they have sent that sludge to Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) of M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur.
22. One tank of old ETP of wood division was found in use for purpose of water cooling & recirculation for wet scrubber.
23. Sample of treated waste water being used in wood division was collected for analysis purpose. The analysis result of collected sample is mentioned below: 75
24. Characteristics of treated waste water being used in wood division are in line with the characteristics of the treated effluent (refer table 29) which indicates that recycled waste water is used for industrial activity in this section and fresh water is not being used.
7.4 Observations on Marble Art ware Manufacturing Section
1. During joint inspection Marble art ware section was found operational.
2. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Marble Artware-345 MT/month, for trial production.
3. Monthly production in data from Jan-2021 to June-2021 of marble art wares as submitted by the unit is as below:
Table 22: Production of Marble art wares from Jan-2021 to June-
2021 as submitted by the unit
Sr. Month Production of Marble art Production capacity
No. wares (Ton) permitted as per
expired CTO
1. Jan-21 336
2. Feb-21 321 345 Ton/Month
3. Mar-21 330
4. Apr-21 311
5. May-21 309
6. Jun-21 329
4. Manufacturing process of marble art wares comprises of raw material storage, sorting, sizing/cutting, shaping, polishing and dispatch to metal/glass/wood packing department.
5. Two tanks of 5000 lit capacity each are provided at wood division for the storage of treated effluent from common-ETP is used as make-up water in the process of marble division. The unit has installed flowmeter FM-59 (1 KL on the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21) for utilization in marble division plant from the overhead storage tanks.
6. The major source of wastewater generation from marble division are sizing/cutting, shaping and polishing process. For the treatment of the same, the unit has provided separate wastewater recycling plant for internal recycling comprises of collection tank, settling tank in series followed by MGF and ACF, located at marble section.
7. The effluent is collected in a collection cum settling tank and being recycled after passing through MGF and ACF. The water loss during the process is make-up by use of treated effluent from common-ETP.
8. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) FM-60 (4.9 KL, observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) at inlet, and FM-61 (3.7 KL, observed 76 on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) at outlet of internal waste water recycling plant.
9. As informed by the unit representative, cleaning of the settling tank (of separate recycling plant) is carried out in time interval of 45 days by adding the treated waste water from common-
ETP and collected sludge is used as filler material in floor making within the unit premises and excess/balance, if any is sold to building materials contractor.
10. Treated waste water from common-STP is utilized for flushing in toilets located between wooden and marble art ware sections for employees working in wooden and marble art ware sections.
11. Details w.r.t the quantity of treated effluent consumed in marble division and quantity of effluent generated from marble division is assessed and mentioned in Water Audit section of this report.
12. Sample of treated waste water being used in marble division was collected for analysis purpose. The analysis result of collected sample is mentioned below:
13. Characteristics of treated waste water from marble division indicates that recycled water is being used in this section. 7.5 Observations on Thermocol Block Manufacturing Section
1. At the time of inspection, manufacturing process of thermocol block section was found operational.
2. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Thermocol Slab-345 MT/month, for trial production.
3. Manufacturing process comprises of raw material storage, pre-
foaming, making of blocks (using steam) and storage of blocks.
4. The unit has one wood fired Boiler of 4 TPH capacity and the same was found operational at the time of inspection.
77
5. As observed by the joint inspection team, there is no water requirement in this division and no waste water generation from this division, hence no samples were collected. 7.6 Observations on Corrugated Sheet and Box Manufacturing Section
1. Corrugated sheet and box manufacturing section comprises of raw material storage, making of corrugated box and storage of corrugated box.
2. The unit obtained common Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 18.06.2021, valid for trial operation of the unit for production of Metal Artware-200MT/month, Glass Artware-250 MT/Month, Wood Artware-150 MT/Month, Marble Artware-345 MT/Month, Corrugated Boxes-500 MT/Month and Thermocol Slab-345 MT/Month. Both CTOs were granted for trial operation of the unit and were valid from 09.06.2021 to 30.06.2021.
3. As per the CTO (issued by UPPCB, with validity upto 30.06.2021) under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the unit has permission for production of Corrugated Boxes-500 MT/month, for trial production.
4. As observed, waste water is being generated from this division during washing of gum drums. About 0.94 KLD wastewater generated is being sent to Pre-ETP-1 (25 KLD capacity) for further treatment and utilization. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer), FM-32 (1 KL, observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21) at inlet of pre-ETP-1 from corrugation section.
5. On the first day of inspection i.e., 30.06.21, totalizer reading 3 of FM-32 was observed 139.31 m . The waste water generation from washing of gum drums is not continuous and regular as washing of gum drums at corrugated sheet and box manufacturing section is carried out 3-4 times in a week. 8.0 Wastewater Treatment Systems The unit has provided two (2nos.) pre-Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP) as mentioned below:
a) Pre-ETP for treatment of effluent from Electrophoretic, lacquering, plating (EPL) and paint booth sections (stream-1)
b) Pre-ETP for treatment of floor washing effluent from metal artware section (stream-2) For treatment of effluent generated from electro-plating and phosphating plants of metal & glass sections; treated effluent from Pre-ETP-1 and Pre-ETP-2; effluent from wet scrubber of thermic fluid heater and Boiler blow down, the unit has provided one common-ETP near metal division.78
For treatment of domestic waste water from the entire campus i.e., from toilets, bathrooms, kitchens of residential colony; toilets of factory area & offices and metal buffing section, the unit has provided one common-STP near residential colony. At the time of joint inspection, Pre-ETP-1, common-ETP and common-STP were found operational, however Pre-ETP-2 was found non-operational due to unavailability of the floor washing effluent.
The unit has established environmental laboratory for analysis of effluent and sewage parameters i.e., pH, TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, Oil & grease, Total Nitrogen, Microbial analysis and heavy metals.
The unit has submitted a copy of report prepared by NEERI, Nagpur on "Water Quality Audit Report for M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, U.P." based on the study conducted by NEERI during the month of March-2021. Copy of this water quality audit report is placed at Annexure-11. This report of NEERI contains the assessment of water quantity used in various sections followed by water quality analysis, ensuring sustained operation of treatment systems and making water suitable.
Main conclusions and recommendations of the NEERI report are as below,
a) The treated water from common-ETP and common-STP of the unit is suitable for use in various processes of the industry.
b) Detailed audit study including analysis of final treated water should be carried out 2-3 times in a year, ensuring the sustained performance of the treatment facility. Water quality audit report has been examined and comparison of average value for the month of March- 2021, as mentioned in the submitted report (prepared by NEERI) and average values of 05 months (as per submitted logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21) & values observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 has been prepared and placed at sr. no. 13 of conclusions section.
8.1 Pre-ETPs 8.1.1 Pre-ETP-1 for treatment of effluent from Electrophoretic, lacquering and paint booth sections
1. Pre-ETP-1(design capacity 25.0KLD) was found operational during joint inspection.
2. The unit has installed flow meters (with totalizers) at inlet and outlet of Pre-ETP-1.
79
3. Effluent generated from electrophoretic & lacquering (EPL) and paint booth of metal as well as glass division, paint booth of wood division and from the gum drum washing of corrugated box division are treated in Pre-ETP-1.
4. List of Electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizers) installed at different locations of Pre-ETP-1 and totalizer reading &flow observed during joint inspection is as below:
Table 25: List of flow meters installed at Pre-ETP-1 along with reading Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter installation point reading Flow observed observed on No. (m3) (m3/hr)* 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-29 Metal Division: Paint & EPL 604.589 0.0 5 Effluent to Pre- ETP-1 inlet FM-30 Wood Division: Paint 643.511 0.0 5.2 Booth effluent to Pre- ETP-1 inlet FM-31 Glass Division Paint Booth 609.242 0.0 5 & EPL effluent to Pre-ETP-1 inlet FM-32 Effluent from Corrugation 139.314 0.0 1 section to Pre-ETP-1 inlet FM-33 Inlet of biological process of 2792.09 0.0 16.5 Pre-ETP-1 FM-34 Pre-ETP-1 Outlet 2671.484 0.0 16 *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
5. Value of FM-33 shall be total of values of FM-29, FM-30, FM-31 and FM-32. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, total effluent received at Inlet of biological process of Pre-ETP-1 was found 16.5 KL (FM-33). Total of Paint & EPL Effluent from metal & glass division, paint booth effluent from wood division and Effluent from Corrugation section received at Pre-ETP-1 were found 5 KL (FM-29), 5 KL (FM-31), 5.2 KL (FM-30) and 1 KL (FM-32) respectively, which is total 16.2 KL. The difference of 0.3 KL w.r.t. value of FM- 33 is (16.5 KL) is due to evaporation loss in biological aeration process.
6. Pre-ETP comprises of screens, equalization tank, physico-
chemical treatment with three stage flash mixer/reaction tanks, settling tanks (2 stage, batch), biological treatment (Activated sludge process-SBR-I, SBR-II & SBR-III with decanters), and tertiary treatment, i.e., Filtration (Dual media filter, Activated Carbon Filter (ACF)) followed by ultra-filtration. The treatment scheme sequence is presented below:
"Chart omitted"
7. Chemical dosing for physico-chemical treatment is carried out through auto dozer and the unit has installed pH sensor in the flash mixing tank.
80
8. Treated effluent from this Pre-ETP-1 is pumped to equalization tank of Common-ETP for further treatment.
9. For sludge generated from settling tank, the unit has a sludge holding tank followed by filter press and finally sludge cake is stored in covered sludge storage room. Filtrate from the filter press flows under gravity into the equalization tank.
10. Effluent samples were collected from inlet (equalization tank) and outlet (treated effluent after ultra-filtration) for analysis purpose and to assess the performance of this Pre-ETP-1. Analysis results and observations on the results of collected samples is presented in the following section. 8.1.2 Characteristics and Observations on analysis results of samples collected from Pre-ETP-1
1. The analysis result of samples collected from Pre-ETP-1 are as below:
Table 26: Characteristics of sample collected from Pre-ETP-1-General parameters Para-
pH TSS TDS COD BOD Chloride PO4-P NO3- N Color Sulphate meters Inlet 5.9 904 1808 4090 2110 467 6.0 22.7 60 50 Outlet 7.2 36 2528 144 34 409 2.35 3.6 14 461 (Except pH, colour (hazen unit) all parameters are in mg/L) Table 27: Characteristics of sample collected from Pre-ETP-1-Heavy Metals Para-
Sb Se V Zn meter CN As Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb
Inlet 0.23 BDL BDL 0.03 0.63 3.02 97.97 1.5 24.0 0.24 BDL BDL BDL 73.2 Outlet 0.16 0.01 BDL BDL BDL 0.10 1.69 0.08 0.36 0.03 BDL 0.02 BDL 0.36 (All parameters are in mg/L)
2. Analysis results of effluent samples collected from Pre- ETP-1 shows 96.49% reduction in COD and 98.39% reduction in BOD.
3. The value of cyanide in inlet (untreated wastewater) and outlet (treated wastewater) of Pre-ETP-1 are 0.23 mg/l and 0.16 mg/l, respectively. However, it is further treated in common-ETP.
8.2 Pre-ETP-2 for treatment of effluent from Floor washing
1. The unit has also provided a Pre-ETP-2 for treatment of floor washing effluent generating from the metal division, which is comprises of equalization tank & reaction cum settling tank. This pre-ETP-2 is being operated on batch mode, as and when the floor washing is being carried out in metal division.
2. The unit has installed Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) FM-35 at inlet and FM-36 at outlet of Pre-ETP-2. Totalizer readings on FM-35 & FM-36 were observed and found 66.024 m3 (flow-0.0 m3/hr) & 55.5 m3 (flow-0.0 m3/hr) respectively.0.0 m3/hr flow has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
81
3. Pre-ETP-2 was found non-operational due to unavailability of the floor washing effluent, hence sample could not be collected and water utilization on 30.6.2021 is reported 0.0. The average waste water generation from floor washing is observed as 0.44 KLD (FM-35) based on the submitted five months data (from Feb-21 to June-21).
4. Pre-ETP-2 treatment scheme flow chart is as follows:
RAW EFFLUENT SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE Pump CAUSTIC SODA ALUM POLYELECTROLYTE EQUALIZATION TANK Pump REACTION CUM SETTLING TANK MIX INTO EQUALIZATION SLUDGE HOLDING TANK COMMON STREAM TANK
5. Treated effluent from this Pre-ETP-2 is pumped to equalization tank of Common-ETP for further treatment.
6. The unit is maintaining logbook record of all the flow meters.
As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 of above mentioned flow meters as submitted by the unit, the quantity of effluent being treated through this Pre-ETP-2 and being sent to common- ETP is assessed. All the details are mentioned in Water audit section of this report.
8.3 Common ETP
1. The unit has provided a common-ETP having capacity of 150 KLD for treatment of effluent from a. Electro-plating and phosphating plant of metal division b. Electro-plating and phosphating plant of glass division c. Treated effluent from two pre-ETPs (pre-ETP-1 & pre-ETP-2) d. Effluent from wet scrubber of thermic fluid heater and e. Boiler blow-down.
The treated sewage of about 22.6 KL is also sent to UF feed tank of common-ETP for make-up purpose.
2. At the time of joint inspection, Common-ETP was found operational.
3. Common-ETP comprises of oil & grease trap, equalization tank, physico-chemical treatment with three stage flash mixer & reaction tanks, flocculation tank, Primary tube-settlers, pH correction, aerobic biological treatment (MBBR based), Secondary tube-settlers, tertiary treatment-Filtration (Duel Media Filter (DMF) and ACF), Softening plant, Ion-exchange, two stage 82 ultrafiltration i.e., UF-1 & UF-2, three stage RO plant i.e., RO-1, RO-2 & RO-3 followed by three stage Multiple Effect Evaporator (MEE) and Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD).
4. The treatment scheme sequence of common-ETP is as follows:
"Chart omitted"
5. The effluent from collection cum equalization tank is treated through Physico-chemical methods followed by MBBR system. The biological treated effluent is fed to DMF, ACF, softening plant, ion-exchange and then is fed to two stage ultrafiltration and collected in clear water tank.
6. From clear water tank the effluent is fed into three stage RO system in series. Permeate of all three ROs collected in treated water collection tank and RO-3 reject is fed to three stage MEE. MEE condensate is collected in treated water collection tank and MEE concentrate is fed to ATFD for conversion of MEE concentrate in to salt.
7. ATFD condensate is collected in treated water collection tank and solids/salt having 3-4% moisture content is being sent to Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) for final disposal.
8. Permeate of RO-1, RO-2 & RO-3 is mixed with MEE condensate & ATFD condensate and then mixed treated effluent is recycled to glass, metal, wood, marble and corrugation section for utilization in different production process.
9. During joint inspection MEE and ATFD were found operational.
10. List of Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) installed at different locations of common-ETP and totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection is as below:
Table 28: List of flow meters installed at common-ETP along with reading Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneo Values meter installation reading us Flow observed No. point (m3) observed on (m3/hr)* 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-37 Effluent from 5658.824 3.5 48 Metal Division (Phosphating & Electro Plating) to Common-ETP receiving sump FM-38 Effluent from 6697.22 0.0 Glass Division 47 (Phosphating, Electro Plating& Boiler Blowdown) to Common-ETP receiving sump 83 FM-39 From receiving 22157.85 6.4 111 sump to Common ETP Inlet FM-40 Outlet of 23135.64 0.0 118 biological treatment FM-41 UF-1 Feed 5929.59 0.0 36.5 FM-42 UF-2 Feed 17805.26 6.9 108.5 FM-43 UF-1 Outlet 5329.73 3.0 32.9 FM-44 UF-2 Outlet 16811.29 6.8 104 FM-45 RO-1 Feed 22305.34 7.0 137 FM-46 RO-2 Feed 5727.31 5.4 45 FM-47 RO-3 Feed 3012.36 2.5 21 FM-48 RO-3 Reject 2356.06 1.7 15.6 FM-49 RO-3 Permeate 1541.98 0.79 9 FM-50 RO-2 Permeate 0.799 1.86 21 FM-51 RO-1 Permeate 14831.56 5.1 92 FM-52 MEE Feed 2370.86 1.6 15 FM-53 ATFD Feed 192.00 0.0 1.2 FM-54 Outlet of MEE & 2880.99 1.6 ATFD 19 Condensate storage tank *Flow 0.0 m3/hr has been observed due to the batch mode of operation.
11. The flow meter instantaneous readings observed 0.0 where rechecked after certain time and found working, with increase in totalized readings.
12. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, 48 KL (FM-
37) of effluent from metal division(Phosphating & Electro Plating) to Common-ETP receiving sump and 47KL (FM-38) of effluent from Glass Division (Phosphating, Electro Plating & Boiler Blowdown), 16 KL (FM-34) treated effluent from Pre-ETP-1 and 0 KL(FM-36) treated effluent from Pre-ETP-2 has been received at receiving sump of common-ETP, 118 KL (FM-40) of treated effluent was found at outlet of biological treatment of common-ETP.
13. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, at storage tank before Ultrafiltration unit of common-ETP, 27 KL (FM-20) of treated sewage has been received from common-STP for makeup purpose.
14. The treated effluent from common-ETP (RO-1 Permeate, RO-2 Permeate, RO-3 Permeate, MEE & ATFD condensate) on 30.06.2021 was found 141 KL, which is total of values of 92 KL (FM-51:RO-1 Permeate), 21 KL (FM-50:RO Permeate), 9 KL (FM- 49:RO-3 Permeate), and 19 KL (FM-54: MEE & ATFD condensate).
15. Treated effluent from common-ETP is pumped to glass (FM-75), metal (FM-76) and wood (FM-55: common for wood, marble and corrugation sections) for utilization in different industrial process.
16. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, 9.9 KL (FM-
55), 72 KL (FM-75) and 57 KL (FM-76); total 139 KL of treated effluent from common-ETP was sent to wood division, glass division and metal division respectively for utilization in industrial processes.
84
17. As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 provided by the unit, quantity of treated effluent at Common-ETP outlet, being sent to metal, wood, glass, marble and corrugation division for utilization in industrial processes, is explained in the following diagram:
18. The pH control and chemicals solutions dosing are automatically carried out through auto dozer-pump and pH is displayed in digital lucent panels.
19. For sludge generated from primary and secondary tube settlers, the unit has a sludge holding tank followed by filter press and finally sludge cake is stored in covered sludge storage room. Filtrate from the filter press is pumped to equalization tank of the common-ETP.
20. Filter press for sludge dewatering was observed operational. Sludge cake and ATFD salt were found stored in covered sludge store room.
21. Samples were collected from inlet of common-ETP (equalization tank), outlet (after tertiary treatment i.e., ion-exchange), feed to ultrafiltration and final treated water collection tank (in which permeate of RO-1, 2, 3 & condensate of MEE & ATFD is being stored) for performance assessment of common-ETP. Analysis results and observations on the results of collected samples is presented in the following section.
8.3.1 Characteristics and observations on analysis results of samples collected from common-ETP 85
1. Analysis result of samples collected from common-ETP are mentioned below:
Table 29: Analysis results of samples collected from Common-ETP S. Effluent samples collection locations No. ion-exchange) Common- ETP Final treated Common ETP storage tank Equalization outlet (after (Untreated) Common -
ETP Inlet-
ETP Feed (treated) Para-
water Common-
tank meters to UF
1. pH 8.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 2. TSS 125 13 18 10 3. TDS 2380 1760 2120 48 4. COD 136 42 45 27 5. BOD 53 09 14 04 6. Chloride 362 295 314 15
7. PO4-P 0.63 1.07 1.56 0.06
8. NO3-N 10.8 10.5 7.6 5.8 9. Color 14 21 16 21
10. Sulphate 336 425 555 BDL
11. Total
- - 163 -
Hardness
12. Cyanide BDL BDL BDL BDL
13. As BDL 0.01 BDL BDL
14. Cd BDL BDL BDL BDL
15. Co 0.01 BDL BDL BDL
16. Cr 0.22 BDL BDL BDL
17. Cu 0.63 0.08 0.09 BDL
18. Fe 5.29 0.13 0.12 0.02
19. Mn 0.32 0.07 0.07 BDL
20. Ni 7.98 1.33 1.25 BDL
21. Pb 0.02 0.01 0.01 BDL
22. Sb BDL BDL BDL BDL
23. BDL 0.02 0.02 BDL Se
24. BDL BDL BDL 0.09 V
25. 7.26 0.10 0.10 0.01 Zn (except pH and colour (Hazen unit), all values are in mg/l)
1. Analysis results of effluent samples collected from common-
ETP show 80.10% reduction in COD, 92.40% reduction in BOD and 97.90% reduction in TDS.
2. Heavy metal concentrations in final treated effluent are found BDL, except Fe-0.02 mg/l, V-0.09 mg/l and Zn-0.01mg/l. 8.4 Common STP 86
1. The unit has provided a common-STP for treatment of domestic waste water generated from the entire campus i.e., from toilets, bathrooms, kitchens of residential colony; toilets of all the divisions & offices and metal buffing section having capacity of 250 KLD.
2. Common-STP was found operational at the time of joint inspection.
3. Common-STP comprises of collection tank, screens, oil grease removal trap, equalization/holding tank, Sequential Batch Reactor unit, Tertiary treatment, i.e., Filtration (PSF, ACF and Ultra-filtration) followed by chlorination.
4. Sewage treatment scheme sequence of common-STP is as follows:
"Chart omitted"
5. Sewage from metal section is first treated using physico-
chemical treatment installed in STP and outlet of tube settler is discharged in to 1st inlet chamber of STP.
6. Screw type (volute) press is installed for continuous dewatering of sludge.
7. Treated effluent from STP is being utilized for
a) Metal division,
b) Glass division
c) Wood division
d) Colony for toilet flushing
e) To balance common-ETP losses
f) Green belt for horticulture
8. List of Electromagnetic flow meter (with totalizer) installed at different locations of common-STP and totalizer reading & flow observed during joint inspection is as below:
Table 30: List of flow meters installed at common-STP along with reading Flow Flow meter Totalizer Instantaneous Values meter no. installation reading Flow observed observed point (m3) (m3/hr) on 30.06.2021 (KL) FM-10 Sewage from Metal 5957.81 0.0 51 Division to common-STP inlet FM-11 Sewage from Both 7566.28 0.0 57 Colony & Canteen to common-STP inlet FM-12 Sewage from 3805.44 4.0 33 Wood & General (Admin) to common-STP inlet FM-13 Sewage from 3898.04 0.0 34 Glass Division to common-STP inlet FM-14 STP Inlet 46427.90 0.0 176 (Holding Tank) FM-15 STP Outlet Treated 45501.97 8.3 171 Sewage Holding Tank) 87 FM-16 STP Treated 9978.0 2.47 35 Wastewater recycle to Metal Division FM-17 STP Treated 9446.5 0.0 41 Wastewater recycle to Glass Division FM-18 STP Treated 4979.1 0.0 21 Wastewater recycle to Wood Division FM-19 STP Treated 1298.0 0.70 11 Wastewater recycle to Colony Flushing (both colony, VIP & residential as well as canteen) FM-20 STP Treated 8087.3 0.0 27 Wastewater sent to common-ETP for makeup of losses FM-21 STP Treated 11450.3 7.41 39 Wastewater recycle to Horticulture
9. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021, 51 KL (FM-10) of sewage from metal division, 57 KL (FM-11) of sewage from both colony (VIP & residential colony) as well as canteen, 33 KL (FM-12) sewage from wood division & general (office building) and 34 KL (FM-13) sewage from glass division, making total of 175 KL of sewage has been received at receiving sump of common-STP.
10. Total 176 KL (FM-15) of treated sewage was found at outlet of common-STP (inlet to treated waste water storage tank of common-STP).
11. Treated sewage from common-STP is pumped to metal division (FM-16), glass division (FM-17), wood division (FM-18), residential & VIP colony as well as canteen (FM-19), common- ETP (for make-up purpose) (FM-20) and horticulture (FM-21) for utilization in domestic and utility purposes.
12. On the first day of joint inspection dated 30.06.2021,35 KL (FM-
16), 41 KL (FM-17), 21 KL (FM-18), 11 KL (FM-19), 27 KL (FM-
20) and 39 KL (FM-21); total 174 KL of treated sewage from common-STP was sent to metal division, glass division, wood division, residential & VIP colony as well as canteen, common- ETP (for make- up purpose) and horticulture for utilization in domestic and utility purposes.
13. The unit is maintaining logbook record of all the flow meters. As per the logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21 of above mentioned flow meters as submitted by the unit, the quantity of sewage being treated through this common-STP and being sent to glass, metal, wood section, residential colony and to horticulture for utilization in toilet flushing and utility purposes is assessed.
14. As informed by the unit representative, the STP sludge is being disposed to Transport Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) 88 namely, M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur, along with ETP sludge. However, the unit is not maintaining separate log book for STP sludge generation as well as disposal and the quantity of STP sludge sent to TSDF site is not mentioned in the submitted form-10.
15. Samples were collected from STP inlet, STP outlet and aeration tank for analysis purpose. Analysis results and observations on the results of collected samples is presented in the following section.
8.4.1 Characteristics and observations on analysis results of samples collected from common-STP
1. Analysis result of samples collected from common-STP are mentioned below:Table 31: Analysis result of samples collected from common-STP Sampling Natural Domestic locations Pond Effluent outside discharge Water used in Sr. STP STP Aeration the standards Horticulture No. Parameters Inlet Outlet tank industry as per 400 Consent meter away
1. pH 6.9 7.2 - 7.0 8.8 6.5-9.0
2. TSS 5464 BDL - 15 27 100
3. TDS 676 504 - 800 424 -
4. COD 5158 21 - 34 55 250
5. BOD 1720 02 - 10 - 30
6. Chloride 150 110 - 149 61 -
7. PO4-P 6.13 3.05 - 3.24 0.99 -
8. NO3-N 20.6 10.7 - 10.8 1.3 -
9. Color 94 09 - 15 - -
10. Sulphate 31 17 - 47 10 -
11. NH3-N 91 06 - - - -
12. Oil & Grease - BDL - - - -
13. Cyanide 3.19 BDL - BDL BDL -
14. As 0.09 0.04 - 0.04 BDL -
15. Cd BDL BDL - BDL BDL -
16. Co 0.05 BDL - BDL BDL -
17. Cr 1.45 BDL - BDL BDL -
18. Cu 7.18 0.03 - 0.03 BDL -
19. Fe 75.60 0.08 - 0.62 0.35 -
20. Mn 3.0 0.05 - 0.17 0.17 -
21. Ni 10.42 0.06 - 0.07 0.07 -
22. Pb 3.44 BDL - 0.02 BDL -
23. Sb 0.03 BDL - BDL BDL -
24. Se BDL BDL - BDL BDL -
25. V BDL 0.12 - 0.06 BDL -
26. Zn 17.35 0.02 - 0.08 0.03 -
27. MLSS - - 16141 - - -
28. MLVSS - - 9986 - - -
Total coliform - --
29. 28x1011 9.1 - -
(MPN/100 mL)
Faecal coliform - --
30. 44x1010 9.1 - -
(MPN/100mL)
(except pH and colour (Hazen unit) all parameters are in mg/l) 89
1. As per analysis results, the STP inlet is not a representative sample of sewage as it shows significant concentration of BOD (1720 mg/l), COD (5158 mg/l) and heavy metals (CN-3.19 mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l), which are not representing the characteristics of sewage and indicates the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic sewage.
2. As per Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) manual on sewage and sewage treatment systems-2013 Part A Engineering, typical process parameters for SBR configurations mentioned in Table No 5.57 at page no 5-198, MLSS concentration flow and intermittent decant is 3,500-5,000mg/l for optimum operation of SBR however, as per the analysis results of aeration tank MLSS concentration was 16141mg/l; indicating that periodic removal of sludge is not taking place thus STP is not operating properly.
STP inlet has significant concentration of heavy metals (CN- 3.19 mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l) however no separate treatment unit for heavy metal removal exists in the existing common-STP, even though the STP-outlet shows 100% reduction in Cyanide, 100% reduction in Chromium, 100% reduction in Lead, 99% reduction in Nickel, 99.8% reduction in Zinc, 99.8% reduction in Iron, 99.6% reduction in Copper indicating possibility of dilution at STP outlet can't be ruled out.
Heavy metals have inhibitory effect on heterotrophic organisms if exists beyond the threshold concentration i.e Cu- 1.0mg/l, Pb-0.1mg/l, Ni-1.0mg/l, Zn-1.0mg/l (as per Wastewater Engineering by Metcalf & Eddy, Table 2-13, page no 78).
9.0 Hazardous Waste Management
1. The unit has Hazardous waste authorization (Authorization no.
8531) issued under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 for 13 different category hazardous wastes as mentioned in table below, which is valid up to 16.07.2024. Authorization no. 8531 is placed at Annexure-12.
Table 32: Authorized Haz. waste categories with quantity and mode of disposal as per valid haz. waste authorization S. Category of Hazardous Authorized mode of Quantity No Waste as per the disposal/recycling/ (ton/ Schedules I, II and III of utilization/co- processing, annum) these rules etc.
1. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 50 no. per 33.1) day Empty Containers 90
2. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 10 kg/day 33.2) Cotton Waste, Used Cloth Mask
3. Part B Schedule 3 TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 5 kg/Month (Category B3040) Rubber Gloves
4. Part B Schedule 4 TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 20 no./Month (category B4030) Old Batteries
5. Schedule 4 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 50 kg/Month
19) Paint Booth sludge
6. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 0.15 kg/day 1.3) Oily Rags
7. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 0.1 KL/Month 5.1) Used Oil
8. Part D Schedule 3 TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 8 kg/day (category B3020) Empty Corrugated Cartons
9. Schedule 1 (category TSDF 20 kg/ Month 6.3) Melting Furnace Ash
10. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 5 kg/Month 15.2) Asbestos Gloves/Cloth
11. Schedule 1 (category TSDF/Authorized Recyclers 5 no./Month 3.3) Fuel Filter and Air Filter
12. Schedule 1 (category TSDF 1000 12.6) Polishing Dust kg/Month
13. Schedule 1 (category TSDF 40 kg/day 35.3) ETP Sludge
2. The unit has submitted a letter to UPPCB dated 26.05.2021 for amendment in the quantity of three category of hazardous waste in the valid Hazardous waste authorization (Authorization no. 8531) issued under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 as mentioned below: Unit's letter dated 26.05.2021 is placed at Annexure-13.
Table 33: Amended quantity of Haz. waste categories as per unit's submitted letter dated 26.05.2021 to UPPCB S. No Category of Existing Quantity Amended Hazardous Waste as (ton/annum) as per haz. quantity as per the Schedules I, II Waste Authorization no. per unit's and III of these rules 8531 letter dated 26.05.21
1. Schedule 1 (category 50 no. per day No change 33.1) Empty Containers 91
2. Schedule 1 (category 10 kg/day No change 33.2) Cotton Waste, Used Cloth Mask
3. Part B Schedule 3 5 kg/Month 10 kg/Month (Category B3040) Rubber Gloves
4. Part B Schedule 4 20 no./Month No Change (category B4030) Old Batteries
5. Schedule 4 (category 50 kg/Month
19) Paint Booth sludge
6. Schedule 1 (category 0.15 kg/day 1.3) Oily Rags
7. Schedule 1 (category 0.1 KL/Month 5.1) Used Oil
8. Part D Schedule 3 8 kg/day (category B3020) Empty Corrugated Cartons
9. Schedule 1 (category 20 kg/ Month 6.3) Melting Furnace Ash
10. Schedule 1 (category 5 kg/Month 15.2) Asbestos Gloves/ Cloth
11. Schedule 1 (category 5 nos./Month 160 nos./ 3.3) Fuel Filter and Air Month Filter
12. Schedule 1 (category 1000 kg/Month No change 12.6) Polishing Dust
13. Schedule 1 (category 40 kg/day 125MT/ Year-
35.3) ETP Sludge for ETP sludge including MEE sludge
3. The unit had membership certificate of Transport Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) namely, M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur for lifting, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste generated at M/s C. L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, which was valid up to 31.03.2021. Now the membership has been extended upto 31.03.2024, the same is placed at Annexure-14.
4. Unit has two separate covered closed hazardous waste storage areas. One is used for storing sludge from the common ETP and the other one is used for storage of hazardous waste from different manufacturing sections.
5. At the time of inspection, ETP sludge, ATFD salt, discarded containers, rubber gloves, used masks and old batteries were found stored in the dedicated haz. waste storage area.
6. The unit is maintaining daily records of the hazardous waste generation and disposal for tube light (fused), bulb & CFL (fused), used rubber gloves, old battery, used face masks, used cotton gloves, empty container, used oil, empty corrugated cartons and ETP sludge. The unit has submitted daily record 92 of the haz. waste generation as well as disposal to TSDF facility from Dec-2020 to June-2021, which has been verified.
7. The unit has sent generated hazardous waste to the TSDF for which the unit has maintained Manifest document (Form-10, as required under Rule 19 of the HOWM Rules, 2016). The unit has provided the following data of haz. waste disposal (From-10) from Feb-2021 to June-2021, the same is placed at Annexure-15.
Table 34: Hazardous waste disposal to M/s. Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur from Feb-21 to June-21 Sr. Hazardous waste Disposal quantity from No. Feb-21 to June-21 Disposal to (Form-10)
1. ETP sludge 5115 kg
2. Old battery 106.2 kg (59 nos.)
3. Cotton gloves 17.75 kg
4. Used mask 54.7 kg
5. Empty container 1730 nos./865 kg M/s Bharat Oil &
6. Used Oil 316 lit Waste Management
7. Empty corrugated cartons 548 kg Ltd., Kanpur
8. Polish dust 2878 kg
9. Oily Rags 16.26 kg Total 9916.91 kg
8. Automatic water sprinkling arrangements, fire alarming systems, flame arresters, smoke/heat detectors, fire extinguishers and other necessary provisions provided in the storage area as stipulated under the Guidelines for storage of incinerable hazardous wastes.
9. The unit has submitted Annual return (Form-4) for year: 2020- 21 w.r.t. generation and management of hazardous waste to Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The copy of the Annual return (Form-4) for the year 2020-21 is placed at Annexure-
16. 10.0 Water Audit All the calculations mentioned below w.r.t. water audit are done based on the logbook record provided by the unit. The readings were verified in the logbook by the joint team. Joint team has collected all the primary and secondary data required to conduct the water audit during joint inspection from 30.06.2021 to 02.07.2021. Total 87 flow meters are installed in different sections, which were physically inspected by the joint team and data of last 5 months (from Feb-21 to June-21) was collected for assessment. List of all the installed 87 nos. of flow meters with location, totalizer reading and flow observed during joint inspection is placed at Annexure-1. During inspection, Joint team has assessed the qualitative & quantitative requirement of water in different sections of the unit.
10.1 Fresh water for general use 93
1. The unit is abstracting fresh water from two borewell to meet the daily freshwater requirement.
2. Flowmeters are provided at the abstraction point of borewells.
3. Abstracted freshwater from borewells is stored in two overhead tanks of capacity 0.5 lakhs liters and 2 lakhs liter and then it is distributed in different areas for domestic purposes.
4. Unit has provided flowmeters at area/section wise distribution points. The logbooks for the same were collected for estimation of actual water consumption in different sections for different purposes.
5. For water balance, logbooks readings are considered for estimation of fresh water abstraction through two borewells and its utilization in different areas/sections for domestic purposes.
6. Total freshwater abstraction from two borewells to meet the fresh water requirement from February,2021 to June 30, 2021 are as below:
Table 35: Quantity of fresh water abstraction from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit Sr. Month Fresh water abstraction (KL) No. Borewell No. 3 Borewell No. 4 Total
1. Feb-21 2217.0 856.0 3073.0
2. March-21 2605.0 899.0 3504.0
3. April-21 2540.0 867.0 3407.0
4. May-21 2596.0 890.0 3486.0
5. June-21 2667.0 895.0 3562.0 Total fresh water 12625.0 4407.0 17032.0 consumption during 5 months Average freshwater 2525.0 881.4 3406.4 consumption per month (m3/month) Average Fresh water consumption per day 113.55 KLD against (considering 150 days from Feb-21 to permitted 250 KLD June-21)
7. Total freshwater consumption of the unit comprises of residential use, employees working in office & workers in all 06 manufacturing sections and office canteen from February, 2021 to June 30, 2021 are as below:
Table 36: Details of fresh water consumption pattern from Feb-2021 to June-2021 (as per logbook provided) Month Metal Glass Wood VIP Res. General Staff Division Div. Div. Colony Colony use canteen (KL) (KL) (KL) (KL) (KL) (KL) (KL) Feb-21 667.0 549.0 448.0 307.0 984.0 29.0 83.0 Mar-21 750.0 579.0 438.0 320.0 1205.0 35.0 121.0 Apr-21 703.0 541.0 473.0 326.0 1143.0 39.0 187.0 94 May-21 729.0 561.0 423.5 329.0 1200.0 46.0 192.0 June-21 727.0 556.0 524.0 340.0 1163.0 43.0 206.0 Total 3576.0 2786.0 2306.5 1622.0 5695.0 192.0 789.0 Grand Total = 16966.5KL During February to June 2021, total 16966.5 KL of fresh water is utilized for domestic purpose in different sections of the units against total abstracted quantity of 17032KL.
10.2 Waste water treatment through ETP and STP Details of common-STP, Pre-ETP-1, Pre-ETP-2 and Common-ETP along with detailed flow diagram and treatment units are already explained in Section-8.0.
The unit has submitted the data w.r.t quantity of waste water treated through common-ETP and common-STP from February- 2021 to June-2021, the same is as below:
10.2.1 Sewage generation and treatment:
Unit has a common sewage treatment plant of 250 KLD capacity for treatment and recycling of sewage generating from different sections of the unit.
STP receives sewage from the entire campus i.e., from toilets, bathrooms, kitchens of residential colony; toilets of factory area & offices and metal buffing section.
Details of sewage generation, quantity of treated sewage and its utilization in different section are as below;
Table 37: Quantity of sewage generation and treated sewage from Feb-2021 to June-2021 (as per logbook data) Sr. Month Sewage in Sewage out Losses No. (KL) (KL) (KL) 1. Feb-21 3717 3633 84 2. March-21 4012 3945 67 3. April-21 4407 4319 88 4. May-21 4514 4452 62 5. June-21 4710 4622 88 Total 21360 20971 389 Avg. daily available treated sewage for 139.20 KLD recycling (from Feb-21 to June-21) Around 1.8 % losses of sewage observed during the treatment process which may be due to sludge withdrawal and evaporation loses.
10.2.2 Utilization of treated sewage:
Treated sewage is utilized in different sections of the unit, for toilet flushing in the unit and colony, in utility like cooling tower, boiler feed, horticulture and also utilized as a make up to compensate the loses in process water occurred due to 95 manufacturing process, leakage, evaporation loses etc. Details of utilization of treated sewage is as follows;
Table 38: Utilization of treated sewage from Feb-2021 to June-2021 (as per logbook data) Month Metal Glass Wood Colony Process Horticulture Division Div. (KL)Div. (KL) Toilet water (KL) (KL) Flushing makeup* (KL) (KL) Feb-21 696 758 377 198 648 947 March-21 743 800 416 207 689 951 April-21 803 1012 517 277 666 1059 May-21 814 1058 474 312 687 1106 June-21 848 1109 540 312 711 1095 Total 3904 4737 2324 1306 3401 5158 Grand Total = 20830 KL *Sent to UF feed tank of common-ETP for make-up purpose.
As per log book data total 20830 KL of treated sewage is utilized in different section for different purposes against 20971 KL of total treated sewage during Feb-21 to June-21.
10.2.3 Effluent generation and treatment in ETPs:
The unit has a common-ETP having capacity of 150 KLD for treatment of effluent generated from electro-plating and phosphating plant of metal & glass section + treated effluent from two Pre-ETPs + effluent from wet scrubber of thermic fluid heater+ boiler blow-down.
As per the logbook data submitted by the unit from Feb-21 to June-21, total 22.67 KLD of treated sewage is sent to common ETP ultra filtration feed tank as make up of water loss during different process units of the common- ETP.
Table 39: Quantity of effluent generation and treated effluent from Feb-2021 to June-2021 (as per logbook data Month Effluent Treated Total Treated generation in sewage from effluent to effluent process common- STP common-ETP recycled (KLD) (KLD) (UF feed (KL) (KLD) tank) Feb-21 2874 648 3522 3529 March-21 3106.2 689 3795.2 3783.59 April-21 2901.7 666 3567.7 3575.5 May-21 2723.2 687 3410.2 3409.9 June-21 2857.824 711 3568.824 3551.6 96 Total 14462.924 3401 17863.924 17849.59 Avg. daily available treated effluent for recycling (from Feb-21 to June-21) From the logbook data provided by the unit, it is observed that total 14462.92 KL of trade effluent is reached to common-ETP from pre-ETP-1, Pre-ETP-2, electro-plating and phosphating plant of metal & glass section for further treatment. 3401 KL of treated sewage from common-STP is also received at common-ETP (storage tank-feed to ultrafiltration) as make up water. Hence, total 17863.92 KL (14462.92 KL-trade effluent +3401 KL of treated sewage from common-STP) of wastewater is sent to common-ETP for treatment and total 17849.59 KL of treated effluent has been generated during Feb-21 to June-21.
The losses in the effluent may be attributed to sludge removal & evaporation losses.
10.2.4 Re-use of treated waste water from ETP and STP in different sections
1. Treated waste water from STP is used for following purpose:
a) Green belt for horticulture,
b) Metal division for domestic purpose,
c) Metal division for processing,
d) Glass division
e) Wood division and
f) To common-ETP as make-up water (at storage tank-feed to ultrafiltration)
2. Treated waste water from ETP is used in process:
a) Metal division
b) Glass division
c) Wood division
d) Marble division and
e) Corrugation division Units has six manufacturing section but mostly water usages are observed in glass, metal, wood and marble section.
Water usages pattern of manufacturing units are as follow; a. Glass Section: During the joint inspection, the glass art ware manufacturing section was found operational. In this section, the unit is manufacturing glass art wares using silica sand, soda ash, limestone and feldspar as a raw material. Data of last five- months from Feb-21 to June-21 was collected for study of water usages pattern. Findings of same is tabled below; Table 40: Water consumption & wastewater generation pattern of glass division from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit 97 Sr. no. Process Quantity Quantity of Treatment Water of water waste water, system Loses consumed (KL) (KL) type Treated Sewage from STP
1. Utility like 403.0 None NA 403.0 KL Cooling tower, Pusher cooling
2. Boiler 2518.0 406.0 as Common 2112.0 KL blow down ETP as steam
3. Toilet flushing 1816.0 - Common STP -condensate
-
Total Common 4737 KL Treated effluent- from STP common ETP
1. Chakka 185.7 Recycled Filtration 185.7 KL
2. (Makeup) Blowing 1494.7 internally Recycled plant Filtration 1494.7 KL
3. (Makeup) EPL plant 349.7 internally 613.3 plant Pre-ETP 252.5KL
4. Paint Booth 516.1 (29.16%)
5. Phosphating 866.7 6738.5 252.5KL KL Common ETP 3.7
6. Plant Electroplating 5875.5 (29.16%) (0.05 %) Total 9288.40 KL Water loss 29.16% observed in EPL & paint booth section. Water loss 0.05% observed in phosphating and electro plating plant, which is negligible.
b. Metal Division: Metal division was found operational during joint inspection. Manufacturing process comprises of raw material storage, pre-treatment i.e. polishing, phosphating & shot blasting, finishing of goods i.e., powder coating, painting & plating/electrophoresis coating, packing and dispatch. Data of last five- month from Feb-21 to June-21 was collected to evaluate the water usages pattern. Findings of same is tabled below; Table 41: Water consumption & wastewater generation pattern of metal division from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit Sr. no. Process Water Quantity of Ultimate Water consumed (KL) wastewater, (KL) Treatment Loses system Treated Sewage from STP
1. Utility 661.0 None NA 661.0 KL
2. Toilet flushing 3243.0 - Common -
STP
Total 3904 KL
Treated effluent from common ETP
1. EPL plant 307.2 609.5 Pre-ETP 288.1KL
2. Paint Booth 590.4 (32 %)
3. Phosphating 874.6 5646.6 Common 385.6KL
Plant ETP (6.3 %)
4. Electro-plating 5157.6
(FM77+FM
82)
Total 6929 KL
Water loss 32 % observed in EPL & paint booth section of metal division.
98 Around Water loss 6.3 % observed in phosphating and electro plating plant of metal division.
c. Wood Division: Wood division was found operational during joint inspection. Manufacturing process of wooden art ware comprises of log yard, sawing, treatment Process, seasoning, machining, fabrication, finishing, lacquer spray booths/paint booths, packing and dispatch. For steam requirement in seasoning process, the unit has one wood chips fired Thermic Fluid Heater (TFH) of 10 lac Kcal/hr capacity, followed by cyclone separator & wet scrubber as Air Pollution Control Device (APCD). Data of last five- month from Feb-21 to June-21 was collected to study the water usages pattern. Findings of same is tabled below; Table 42: Water consumption & wastewater generation pattern of wood division from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit Sr. Process Quantity Quantity Treatment Water no. of water of system Loses Consumed wastewater type (KL) (KL) (KL) Treated Sewage from STP
1. Utility 391.0 None NA 391.0
2. Toilet 1933.0 - Common -
flushing STP
Total 2324 KL
Treated effluent from common ETP
1. Paint 952 648.7 Pre-ETP 303.3
Booth (FM56+ (31.86 %)
Total FM58)
952 KL
Common flow meter is installed for measurement of sewage
generated from wood division & general utility. Water loss 31.86 % observed in paint booth section of wood division.
d. Marble Division: Marble division was found operational during joint inspection. Manufacturing process of marble art wares comprises of raw material storage, sorting, sizing/cutting, shaping, polishing and dispatch to metal/glass/wood packing department. Marble section shares the common utility with wood division. This section has a separate wastewater recycling plant for treatment and internal recycling of effluent generating from sizing/cutting, shaping and polishing process of marble section. This recycling plant is comprising of collection tank, settling tank followed by MGF and ACF, located at marble section.
Treated effluent from common ETP is utilized only for make up the process water requirement.
Data of last five-month from Feb-21 to June-21 was collected to study the water usages pattern. Findings of same is as below; 99 Table 43:Water consumption & wastewater generation pattern of Marble division fromFeb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit Sr. Process Quantity of Quantity of treated Total Water no. water internally effluent utilized from water Loses recycled common-ETP usage
1. Stone 108.9 KL 182.6 KL 291.5 KL= 1.217/1.945 process (FM60- FM61) = =1.217 KLD 1.945 KLD *100 0.728 KLD = 62.56 % Around 62.56 % of water loses observed in marble division. e. Corrugation Division: Corrugation division was found operational during joint inspection. Manufacturing process of section comprises of raw material storage, making of corrugated box and storage of corrugated box Data of last five-month from Feb to June 2021 was collected to study the water usages pattern. Only treated effluent from common ETP is utilized as a source of process water.
Table 44: Water consumption & wastewater generation pattern of Corrugation division from Feb-2021 to June-2021, as submitted by the unit Sr. Process Quantity of water Quantity of Treatment Water no. consumed (KL) wastewater system type Loses (KL)
1. Preparation 209.5 140.3 Pre ETP 69.2KL of adhesive (33.03 %) Treated effluent from common-ETP is utilized only to meet the process water requirement.
Generated effluent is sent to pre-ETP for treatment and recycling.
Water loss 33.03 % observed in corrugation division.
"Chart omitted"
10.3 Observation on Water Audit (based on information and logbooks provided by the unit):
10.3.1 Fresh water requirement for domestic purpose As per logbook data provided by the unit total 17032 KL of fresh water abstracted during Feb 2021 to June 2021 and 16966.5 KL of fresh water is utilized in different section of the unit for domestic purposed. Difference of 65.5 KL may be due to losses during supply to different sections, which is 0.38%.
During Feb to June 2021 total 21360 KL of sewage is generated and treated through STP and 20971 KL treated sewage is generated. During treatment process 1.8% of water loss is observed.
Out of total 20971 KL of treated sewage, 20830 KL is utilized in different sections for different purposes. Difference of 141 100 KL may be due to losses during supply to different sections, which is 0.67%.
10.3.2 Treated wastewater quantities and utilization
1. As per logbook data of common-STP from February to June 2021 provided by the unit, 21360 KL of sewage has been treated through common-STP and 20830 KL treated sewage is utilized in different sections for different process,
a) 5158 KL treated sewage is used in horticulture;
b) 3401 KL treated sewage is sent to industrial section for utilization in different process sections and 12271 KL of treated sewage is utilized in toilet flushing by employees within the unit premises in different sections
2. As per logbook data from February to June 2021 provided by the unit w.r.t utilization of treated effluent from common-ETP and treated waste water from common-STP in industrial process is 17848.7 KL (9526 KL in glass section + 1362.1 KLD in wood section + 6960.6 KL in metal section) against the total treated effluent 17849.59 KL.
3. Out of total 18633.39 KL of feed to UF of common-ETP, 17849.59 KL of treated effluent is being recovered and utilized in industrial process.
11.0 Status of Recommendations w.r.t. Previous Joint Inspection dated 10.12.2020 Table 45: Compliance status of recommendation of previous joint inspection dated 10.12.2020 S. Recommendations as per Status as per Joint No. previous Joint inspection inspection dated 30.06.2021 to dated 10.12.2020 02.07.2021
1. The unit shall obtain The unit obtained common Consent to common consent to operate Operate (CTO) under the Water for all 06 manufacturing (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, sections i.e., Metal Art ware, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Glass Art ware, Wood Art Pollution) Act, 1981 issued by UPPCB ware, Thermocol blocks, dated 18.06.2021, valid for trial Marble Art ware & operation of the unit for production of Corrugated Paper & Carton Metal Artware-200 MT/month, Glass under the Air (Prevention & Artware-250 MT/Month, Wood Control of Pollution) Act, Artware-150 MT/Month, Marble 1981 and the Water Artware-345 MT/Month, Corrugated (Prevention & Control of Boxes-500 MT/Month and Thermocol Pollution) Act, 1974 from UP Slab-345 MT/Month. Pollution Control Board.
CTO under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were granted for trial operation of the unit and were valid from 09.06.2021 to 30.06.2021.
101 The unit has again obtained amended common CTO under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 30.06.2021. As per the amended common CTO, "2. The unit shall cease to operate with effect from 03.07.2021. The validity of consent to operate only be considered for extension based upon the compliance status found by the joint committee and also the observations, conclusions & recommendations of the committee."
Refer Annexure-2 & Annexure-3 for CTO dated 18.06.2021 and Annexure-4 for amended common CTO dated 30.06.2021 under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
2. Unit shall ensure, no fresh From the data of water water is used for industrial consumption, effluent generation, process and comply with quantity of treated effluent of the conditions laid down in common ETP and sewage NOC of CGWA. treatment plant of indicated that fresh water in not used in industrial process. The fresh water is used for domestic purpose in residential colony & industry area for drinking purpose.
As per the latest NOC issued by U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) via Certificate No: NOC019504 under {UIS10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019}, which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. As per the NOC, the project proponent is allowed to abstract 250m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 3 Borewells for industrial purpose.
Unit is abstracting 113.54 KLD of fresh water to meet the daily requirement for domestic purposes against the allowed capacity of 250 KLD.
Previous NOC issued by CGWA for abstraction of 155KLD ground water for domestic purpose, which was 102 valid till 21.12.2021, now stands invalid.
Analysis result of samples of water being used in different manufacturing sections i.e., glass, metal, wood & marble sections indicating that unit is recycling the treated waste water from common-ETP & common-STP and not using fresh water for industrial purpose, however, the unit has obtained NOC for abstraction of ground water for industrial purpose, which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026 (as mentioned above).
3. The unit shall engage The unit has submitted a copy of expert institute to carry out report prepared by NEERI, Nagpur on detailed & water audit for "Water Quality Audit Report for M/s detailed study of total C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, actual water consumption & U.P." based on the study conducted recycling of treated waste by NEERI during the month of March-
water. 2021.
This report contains the assessment of water quantity used in various sections followed by water quality analysis, ensuring sustained operation of treatment systems and making water suitable.
Copy of this water quality audit report is placed at Annexure-11.
Water quality audit report has been examined and comparison of average value for the month of March-2021, as mentioned in the submitted report (prepared by NEERI) and average values of 05 months (as per submitted logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21) & values observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 has been prepared and placed at sr. no. 13 of conclusions section.
4. For carrying out factual water The unit has installed electromagnetic audit, unit shall ensure flow meters (with totalizer) at all and metering at all and individual treated waste water individual treated waste consumption points at each water consumption points at manufacturing section as well as for each manufacturing section to domestic purpose.
ascertain actual water consumption in each process The unit has installed as well as for domestic electromagnetic flow meter (with purpose and maintain totalizer) at inlet and outlet of both logbook for the same. Pre-ETPs i.e., for treatment of effluent generating from electrophoretic,
5. The unit shall install flow lacquering and paint booth processes meters at inlet and outlet of and for treatment of floor washing both Pre-ETPs i.e., for effluent.
treatment of effluent generating from electrophoretic, lacquering 103 and paint booth processes The unit has installed and for treatment of floor electromagnetic flow meter (with washing effluent. totalizer) at outlet of secondary biological treatment system,
6. For common-ETP, the unit permeate of RO, MEE condensate shall install flow meters at and ATFD condensate. outlet of secondary biological treatment system, permeate The unit has installed total 87 nos. of of RO, MEE condensate and electromagnetic flow meter (with ATFD condensate.
totalizer) at all the points of waste/waste water i.e., ground water extraction points, water distribution lines to all the different sections of the unit, inlet, outlet and other different locations of Pre-
ETPs/Common-ETP/Common-STP, treated waste water utilization points from Pre- ETPs/Common-
ETP/Common-STP to all the different sections of the unit and waste water generation points of different sections of the unit.
The unit is also maintaining logbook for all the installed flow meters.
List of all the installed 87 nos. of flow meter along with locations and totalizer reading (with instantaneous flow rate) observed during current joint inspection is placed at Annexure-1.
As per the logbook data of fresh water and treated waste water utilization in different sections from common-STP & common-ETP, submitted from Feb-
21 to June-21,
1. Total 2786 KL of fresh water &total 4737 KL of treated sewage from common-STP (for domestic purpose) & total 9288.40 KL of treated effluent from common-ETP (for industrial purpose) has been used in glass division.
2. Total 3576 KL of fresh water & total 3904 KL of treated sewage from common-STP (for domestic purpose) and total 6929.8 KL of treated effluent from common-ETP (for industrial purpose) has been used in metal division.
3. Total 2306.5KL of fresh water, which is common for wood and marble sections & total 2324 KL of treated sewage from common-STP (for domestic purpose) and total 952 KL of treated effluent 104 from common-ETP (for industrial purpose) has been used in wood division.
4. Total 182.6 KL of treated effluent from common-ETP (for industrial purpose) has been used in marble division.
5. Total 209.5 KL of treated effluent from common-ETP (for industrial purpose) has been used in corrugation section for preparation of adhesives.
7. The unit shall dispose off The unit has disposed off the the sludge from sludge sludge from sludge drying bed of the drying bed of the previous previous ETP at wooden art ware ETP at wooden art ware manufacturing division, to TSDF site manufacturing division, to (M/s Bharat Oil & Waste TSDF site. Management Ltd., Kanpur).
No sludge was found in the tank during current joint inspection.
As per Hazardous waste disposal data (form-10) from Feb-21 to June-
21, the unit has sent total 5115 Kg of ETP sludge to TSDF site (M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur).
8. Presence of cyanide upto As per the analysis result of 5.0 mg/l in treated effluent sample collected from the final from common-ETP is treated water storage tank of observed; hence human common-ETP, cyanide value has contact shall be strictly been found Below Detectable avoided during the Limit (BDL).
recycle/re-use of common ETP treated effluent. However, significant concentration of Cyanide was found in sample collected from common- STP inlet (3.19 mg/l) and detectable concentration was found in Pre ETP-1 inlet (0.23 mg/l) & Pre-ETP-1 outlet (0.16 mg/l).
9. The unit shall check pH As per analysis results, the STP of treated sewage and inlet is not a representative maintain in the range of 6.5- sample of sewage as it shows 8.5 before pumping for significant concentration of BOD horticulture use and FC (1720 mg/l), COD (5158 mg/l) and concentration should be heavy metals (CN-3.19 mg/l, Cr- brought down below 1000 1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 MPN/100 ml. mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l), which are not representing the characteristics of sewage and indicates the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic sewage.
105
As per the analysis result of common-STP outlet, pH value has been found 7.2, which is complying w.r.t the prescribed domestic effluent discharge standard of pH-6.5-9.0 (for on land application) as per the Consent to Operate granted by UPPCB.
FC concentration of sample of treated sewage has been found 9.1 MPN/100 ml.
As per the analysis results of treated sewage from common-STP to treated sewage used in horticulture, concentration of Fe-0.08 mg/l to 0.62 mg/l, Mn-0.05 mg/l to 0.17 mg/l, Ni-0.06 mg/l to 0.07 mg/l, Pb-
BDL to 0.02 mg/l and Zn-0.02 mg/l to 0.08 mg/l has been found.
12.0 Status of imposed Environmental Compensation (EC)
1. As per the Hon'ble NGT order dated 06.08.2020 and the compliance status report of the unit prepared and submitted by the joint committee CPCB, UPPCB, SDM, Amroha & CGWA, in compliance to NGT order dated 29.08.2019, following amount of EC was imposed on the unit:
Table 46: Environmental Compensation imposed on the unit Sr Environmental Period Formula Calculation No Compensation
1. For illegal Year: 2018-19 ECGW=Water ECGW=175 (m3/day) extraction of Period beyond the consumption (330-155) × 80 (Rs/ Ground water expiry of CGWA per day × EC m3) × 527*(days)×1 NOC: rate for illegal =Rs. 73,78,000/-
21.12.2018 to extraction of ............(a)
30.05.2020 ground water ECGW=2.30(m3/day)×
Year: 2017-18 for (ECRGW) × No. 80
illegal annual of days × (Rs/m3)×365(days)×
extraction of Deterrent 1
3
99,691 m from Factor =Rs.67,160/-
01.10.2017 to .............(b)
30.09.2018, higher
than the
permitted ground
water extraction
of 99,000
3
m /annum) Illegal
extraction=
(99691-99000)
/300
=691/300
=2.3 m3/day
106
Total EC = (a) + (b)
=73,78,000+67,160
=74,45,160
2. For violation from date of EC=PI×N×R×S×LF A)
of effluent inspection carried (considering 28.03.2019-
discharge/ out by the joint deterrent factor 25.06.2019
inadequate team and found for repeated (EC= PI * N * R * S *
ETPs/ZLD violation of ZLD violations) LF)*1
norms as per norms dated Where, =80* 90*250*1.5*1
CTO 28.03.2019 to date PI= Pollution =27,00,000/-
of inspection of index
2nd inspection of of industrial
the joint team sector (here-80, B)
dated 16.10.2019 for red category 26.06.2019-
industrial 23.09.2019
sector), (EC= PI * N * R * S
N=Number of * LF)*2
days of =80*
violation took 90*250*1.5*1*2
place (here- =54,00,000/-
203 days,
from C)
28.03.2019 23.09.2019-
to 16.10.2019) 16.10.2019
R=A factor in (EC= PI * N * R * S
Rupees for * LF)*4
Penalty (R to =80*
be taken as 23*250*1.5*1*4
250) =27,60,000/-
S=Factor for
scale of
Operation of
the facility
(here-1.5, for
large scale
industry)
LF=Location
factor (Here-1,
for less than 1
million
population)
Total EC = (A) + (B) + (C)
=27,00,000
+54,00,000
+27,60,000
= Rs. 1,08,60,000/-
3. For not 1.Financial 1. 1. Penalty
managing Haz. Penalty Financial Rs. 7,00,000/-
Waste as per Penalty
management The unit was found
as per the violating 07 01 lakh per 2. EC
HOWM Rules, provisions (at Sl. violation of 01
2016 No. 2, 3, 5b, provision of a) For disposal /
6(B)d, 8, 7 and HOWM Rules, handing over to
107
31) of HOWM 2016., Here unit unauthorized place
Rules, 2016. is violating 07 / party
provisions
2. Environmental For Haz. waste
Compensation 2.Environmental No Compensation as
Compensation unit has submitted
The following documentary proof
violations have a) When in the form of Form
been considered hazardous and 10 **
for calculation of others wastes
EC is disposed at For Other waste
unauthorized = 0.847 x 0.3 x
a) When place or 30,000
hazardous and handed over or = Rs. 7623 /-
others wastes is sold to
disposed at unauthorized
unauthorized party b) For Waste found
place or handed stored beyond the
over or sold to For Haz. Waste: stipulated period
unauthorized EC= Q x ERF x R
party and Here, For Haz. waste
Q=Quantity in = 1.406 x 0.1 x
b) Waste found tonnes/year 30000
stored beyond the =3.15 = Rs. 4218 /-
stipulated period tonne/year
(refer Rule 8 of the ERF=
HOWM Rules, Environmental For Other waste
2008) Risk Factor=1.5 = 0.551 x 0.05 x
R=Environmental 30000
Compensation = Rs. 826/-
factor
=Rs. 30,000
For other waste:
(a) Estimated
other waste
stored is
551kg in 6.5
Months
EC = Q x ERF x R
Here, Q=0.847
tonne/year,
ERF=
0.3,
R=Rs.30,000
b) Waste found
stored beyond
the stipulated
period (refer
Rule 8 of the
HOWM
Rules,
2008)
108
For Haz. Waste
= Q x ERF x R
= 1.406 x 0.1 x
30000
For Other waste
= Q x ERF x R
= 0.551 x 0.05 x
30000
Total EC Penalty + EC
=7,00,000+(7,523+
4,218+ 826)
= Rs. 7,12,567/-
Total Environmental Compensation (1) + (2) + (3)
=Rs.
74,45,160+Rs.1,08,60,000+Rs.7,12,567
=Rs. 1,90,17,727/-
2. As per the information provided by UPPCB, the unit has deposited following amount to UPPCB against imposed EC:
Table 47: Environmental Compensation deposited by the unit to UPPCB EC imposed for EC amount Amount Total amount imposed deposited by the deposited unit to UPPCB (1) For illegal extraction of ground water Year: 2018-19 Rs. 73,78,000/- - Considered waived Period beyond the off, as the unit has expiry of CGWA been granted NOC NOC: 21.12.2018 to for extraction of 30.05.2020 ground water w.e.f.
20.12.2018 by U.P.G.W.D Year: 2017-18 Rs. 67,160/- Deposited Rs. Rs. 67,160/-
For illegal annual 67,160/- on
extraction of 10.07.2021
99,691m3 from
01.10.2017 to
30.09.2018
(2) For violation of effluent discharge/ inadequate ETPs/ZLD norms as per CTO From 28.03.2019 to Rs. 1,08,60,000/- Deposited Rs. 1,08,60,000/- 16.10.2019 (Rs.37,53,600 /- + Rs. 10,000/-) dated 19.06.2020 + Rs. 70,96,400/-
dated 08.06.2021 (3) For not managing Haz. Waste as per management as per the HOWM Rules, 2016
1.Financial Penalty Rs. 7,12,567/- Deposited Rs. 7,12,567/-
+ Rs. 1,00,000/- on
2. Environmental 19.06.2021 and Rs.
Compensation 6,12,567/- on
05.11.2020
Total EC amount deposited by the unit to UPPCB against Rs. 1,16,39,727/-
total imposed EC amount of Rs. 1,90,17,727/-
3. The unit has deposited total EC amount of Rs. 1,16,39,727/-to UPPCB till date. Documentary proof for the deposited EC is placed at Annexure-17.
109
4. The remaining EC amount of Rs. 73,78,000/-, which was imposed for the period of 21.12.2018 to 30.05.2020 (Year:
2018-19) beyond the expiry of CGWA NOC is considered to be waived off, as the unit has now been granted NOC from U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 03 Borewells for industrial purpose, having validity from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026.
13.0 Status summary in compliance to Hon'ble NGT order dated 4.2.2021 in the matter of Adil Ansari Vs. M/s C. L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (O.A. NO. 220/2019) 13.1 NGT direction: Verification of the fact that no waste water injection in the ground water is taking place so that the ground water is not contaminated by injection of any waste water, in view of the fact that cyanide and other heavy metal have been found in the samples.
Status: As per the analysis results of the samples collected from the borewell of the unit and surroundings areas including nearby villages, presence of Cyanide has not been found. However, Manganese (0.39 mg/l against 0.3mg/l) & Iron (1.3mg/l against 0.3mg/l) and Iron (0.86mg/l against 0.3 mg/l) were found in the samples collected from the hand pump located near labour gate and borewell located behind the unit respectively. Table 6 may be referred for characteristics of collected ground water samples. However, significant concentration of Cyanide was found in samples collected from common-STP inlet (3.19 mg/l) and detectable concentration was found in Pre-ETP-1 inlet (0.23 mg/l) & Pre-ETP-1 outlet (0.16 mg/l).
Comments of the expert from IIT-Roorkee on the ground water pollution by Cyanide and presence of Cyanide in samples collected from Pre-ETP inlet & outlet and STP inlet are as below:
1. Groundwater Pollution by Cyanide Groundwater samples were collected from five locations using the available hand- pumps/tube-well during the joint survey from the nearby areas of the plant premises to characterize the groundwater quality, particularly in respect of Cyanide pollution. These samples were taken from random depths of confined/unconfined aquifers as monitoring network was not readily available at the plant site.
The observed significant draft (19.98-15.35=4.46m) of groundwater readings by the DWLR installed at piezometers 1-2 at the same time shows that there is a strong heterogeneity of groundwater flow regime in this small area. The lithologs of these piezometers were not provided to the joint team by the Industry. Thus it is difficult to conclude that quantity and quality of groundwater resources of the area are not affected by the Industrial activities. A further soil and groundwater sampling campaign during the pre and post monsoon seasons is needed to be 110 conducted by the industry from appropriate depths and locations in and around the plant premise. It is also suggested having the hydrogeological survey of the plant site using a series of geophysical investigations and suitable pumping/recovery testes to map the groundwater flow regime and its seasonal dynamics. Isotopic analysis of surface and groundwater samples of the area is recommended strongly to establish the sound linkages between the possible subsurface pollutants and the Industrial activities of the area.
2. Observation on Cyanide in Pre ETP inlet & outlet and STP Inlet The cyanide values in the inlet and outlet of Pre-ETP-1 are observed as 0.23 mg/l and 0.16 mg/l. However, the outlet of Pre-ETP is further treated in common-ETP and analyzed samples collected from the final treated water storage tank of common-ETP showed no detectable cyanide. It is to be noted here that presence of cyanide in the inlet of pre-ETP-1 clearly indicates the use of raw/process materials within the production unit having Cyanide. Though, the unit representative of the plating process section informed that cyanide is currently not used in any process. It is to be noted here that water samples were collected from inlets/outlets of ETP/STP only during the two days of the survey, significant variability in water quality entering/leaving the treatment system of the Industry cannot be ignored. Considering the presence and toxicity of Cyanide in the collected sample from the inlet of the STP unit shall carry out the rigorous monitoring of the treatment process and final treated water/effluent. 13.2 NGT direction: Water audit may be got conducted by the CPCB Status: The unit has installed total 87 nos. of electromagnetic flow meters (with totalizer) at all the points of water/waste water i.e., ground water extraction points, water distribution lines to all the different sections of the unit, inlet, outlet and other different locations of Pre-ETPs/Common-ETP/Common-STP, treated waste water utilization points from Pre-ETPs/Common-ETP/Common- STP to all the different sections of the unit and waste water generation points of different sections of the unit. The unit is maintaining logbook for all 87 nos. flow meters installed.
As per the values observed during the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21, on the installed flow meters, the following is concluded:
Fresh water consumption:
1. Total fresh water abstraction from two active borewells was found 127KL. Total raw/fresh water supplied to glass division, VIP colony, metal division, wood division, general (office buildings), residential colony and canteen was found 21KL, 11KL, 28KL, 18.5KL, 1.5KL, 40KL and 7KL respectively, making total 127KL.111
Table 48: Total fresh water consumption in different sections, colony & general purpose on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 Sections Total fresh Colony/General Total fresh water (for drinking water (for domestic consumption purpose) consumption purpose) (KL) (KL) Glass 21 VIP colony 11 Metal 28 Residential colony 40 Wood (common 18.5 General 1.5 for wood &marble (Office buildings) div.) Canteen 7 Total 67.5 Total 59.5 Grand Total= 127 KL Glass division:
1. Fresh water/treated waste water utilized in glass division:
On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-3 the fresh water intake to Glass section was 21KL, as per FM-17 the total treated waste water recycled to glass division from common-STP was 41KL and as per FM-75 the total treated effluent recycled to glass division from common- ETP was 72KL, hence the total water input to this section was 134KL.
2. Trade/domestic waste water generation from the glass division: As per the value of FM-31(5KL) & FM-38(47KL) the total effluent generation from the glass division was 52KL and as per FM-13 the total sewage generation from this division was 34KL, hence the total waste water generation from the glass division was 86KL.
Total difference of 48KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is due to, 18KL (FM-25) supplied to boiler (common for entire unit), 4KL (FM-28) supplied for utility purpose, 13.4KL (FM-66 + FM-67) used as make up water in blowing & chakka unit of this division (making total of 35.4 KL) and remaining difference of 12.6KL may be due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in glass division.
Metal division:
1. Fresh water/treated waste water utilized in metal division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-5 the fresh water intake to metal division was 28KL, as per FM-16 the treated waste water recycled to metal division from common-STP was 35KL and as per FM-76 the treated effluent recycled to metal division from common-ETP was 57KL, hence the total water input to this section was 120KL.
2. Trade/domestic waste water generation from the metal division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-29(5KL), FM-35(0KL) & FM-37(48KL) the total 112 effluent generation was 53KL and as per FM-10 the total sewage generation was 51KL, hence the total waste water generation from the metal division was 104KL.
The difference of 16KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is attributed to utilization of treated sewage for utility purpose i.e., 6KL (FM-23) and remaining difference of may be 10KL due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in metal division.
Wood division:
1. Fresh water/treated waste water utilized in wood marble division: On the first day of inspection dated 30.06.21, as per the value of FM-6 the fresh water intake to Wood & Marble division was 18.5KL, as per FM-18 the treated waste water recycled to wood division from common-STP was 21KL and as per FM-55 the treated effluent recycled to wood division from common-ETP was 9.9KL, hence the total water input to this section was 49.4KL.
2. Trade/domestic waste water generation from the wood division: As per the value of FM-30 the total effluent generation was 5.2KL and as per FM-12 the total sewage generation was 33KL, hence the total waste water generation from wood division was 38.2KL.
The difference of 11.2KL in total water input & waste water generation in this section is attributed to utilization of treated sewage for utility purpose i.e., 3KL (FM-27), utilization of treated effluent from common-ETP in marble section as make up water i.e., 1KL (FM-59) and remaining difference of 7.2KL may be due to losses in process and consumption of fresh water for drinking purposes in wood & marble division.
Common-ETP
1. Total quantity of effluent received to common-ETP receiving sump from metal division (Phosphating & Electro Plating), Glass Division (Phosphating, Electro Plating & Boiler Blowdown), treated effluent from Pre-ETP-1, treated effluent from Pre-ETP-2 and treated sewage from common-STP (for make-up purpose) was found 48 KL, 47 KL, 16 KL, 0 KL and 27 KL respectively, making total 138 KL.
2. The treated effluent from common-ETP (RO-1 Permeate, RO-2 Permeate, RO-3 Permeate, MEE & ATFD condensate) was found 141 KL, which is total of values of 92 KL (RO-1 Permeate), 21 KL (RO-2 Permeate), 9 KL (RO-3 Permeate), and 19 KL (MEE& ATFD condensate).
3. Treated effluent from common-ETP is pumped to glass division, metal division and wood division (common for wood, marble and corrugation sections) for utilization in different industrial process.
113
4. Total 139 KL of treated effluent (9.9 KL to wood division, 72 KL to glass division and 57 KL to metal division) from common-ETP was recycled for utilization in industrial processes.
Common-STP
1. Total quantity of sewage received at common-STP receiving sump from metal division, both colony (VIP & residential colony) as well as canteen, wood division & general (office building) and glass division was found 51 KL, 57 KL, 33 KL and 34 KL respectively, making total of 175 KL.
2. Total 176 KL of treated sewage was found at outlet of common-STP (inlet to treated waste water storage tank of common-STP).
3. Treated sewage from common-STP is pumped to metal division, glass division, wood division, both colony (VIP & residential colony) as well as canteen, common-ETP (as make up purpose) and horticulture for utilization in domestic and utility purpose.
4. Total 174 KL of treated sewage (35 KL to metal division, 41 KL to glass division, 21 KL to wood division, 11 KL to residential & VIP colony as well as canteen, 27 KL to common-ETP (for make-up purpose) and 39 KL to horticulture) was recycled for utilization in domestic and utility process. Concluding remarks on water audit based on findings of 30.06.2021 (first day of joint inspection):
i. Total intake of fresh water and treated wastewater from common-STP to VIP & residential colonies as well as canteen was 69KL (58FW+11KLtreated), out of which 57KL was received as sewage at common-STP receiving sump; which is 82% of total water intake.
ii. Total Fresh water input for drinking purpose & treated wastewater (from common-STP) recycled for toilet flushing to various manufacturing divisions was 69KL (1.5KL of general building included with wood division) and 66KL respectively making it total of 135KL, out which 118KL was received as sewage at common-STP receiving sump; which is 87% of total FW & recycled water intake for domestic purposes to various manufacturing divisions.
iii. Total treated recycled effluent (from common-ETP) received at various manufacturing divisions for use in industrial activities was 138.9KL, out of which 110.2KL of effluent was being sent back to ETP section for treatment, which is 80% of total treated effluent recycled to divisions. The difference of 28.7KL between input & output is attributed to 14.4KL being used as make up water for different industrial activities and 14.3KL as losses in processes (about 10%).114
iv. The unit is recycling the treated sewage & treated trade effluent (from common- STP & common-ETP) for industrial purpose and nowhere it was found using fresh water in industrial activities. Fresh water is only being used for drinking purpose in various manufacturing divisions.
13.3 NGT Direction: Assessment of compensation may be looked into jointly by CPCB and the State PCB.
Status: The unit has deposited total EC amount of Rs. 1,16,39,727/- to UPPCB against total imposed EC amount of Rs. 1,90,17,727/- till date. documentary proof for the deposited EC is placed at Annexure-17. The remaining EC amount of Rs. 73,78,000/-, which was imposed for the period of 21.12.2018 to 30.05.2020 (Year: 2018-19) beyond the expiry of CGWA NOC is considered to be waived off, as the unit has now been granted NOC from U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 03 Borewells for industrial purpose, having validity from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026.
13.4 Environmental compliance status
1. During the current joint inspection, all the manufacturing section i.e., glass art ware, metal art ware, wooden art ware, marble art ware, thermocol block, corrugated sheet & carton mfg. sections, Pre-ETP-1, Common-ETP and Common-STP were found operational.
2. As per analysis results, the STP inlet is not a representative sample of sewage as it shows significant concentration of BOD (1720 mg/l), COD (5158 mg/l) and heavy metals (CN- 3.19 mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l), which are not representing the characteristics of sewage and indicates the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic sewage.
3. As per the analysis results of treated sewage from common-
STP outlet, concentration of pH- 7.2, Oil & Grease- BDL, BOD- 02mg/l, COD- 21mg/l, Fe-0.08 mg/l, Mn-0.05 mg/l, Ni-0.06 mg/l, V- 0.12mg/l, Pb-BDL, Cyanide- BDL, As- 0.04mg/l, Cd- BDL, Co-BDL, Cr-BDL, Cu-0.03mg/l, Sb-BDL, Se-BDL and Zn- 0.02 mg/l has been found, this is being recycled for utilization in domestic and utility purpose within different manufacturing sections of unit as well as in colonies.
4. As per Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) manual on sewage and sewage treatment systems-2013 Part A Engineering, typical process parameters for SBR configurations mentioned in Table No 5.57 at page no 5-198 (Annexure-18), MLSS concentration flow and intermittent decant is 3,500-5,000mg/l for optimum operation of SBR however, as per the analysis results of aeration tank MLSS concentration was 16141mg/l; indicating that periodic 115 removal of sludge is not taking place thus STP is not operating properly.
STP inlet has significant concentration of heavy metals (CN- 3.19 mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/l, Mn- 3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l) however no separate treatment unit for heavy metal removal exists in the existing common-STP, even though the STP-outlet shows 100% reduction in Cyanide (from 3.19mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction in Chromium (from 1.45mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction in Lead (from 3.44mg/l to BDL), 99% reduction in Nickel (from 10.42mg/l to 0.06mg/l), 99.8% reduction in Zinc (from 17.35mg/l to 0.02mg/l), 99.8% reduction in Iron (from 75.6mg/l to 0.06mg/l), 99.6% reduction in Copper (from 7.18mg/l to 0.03mg/l) indicating possibility of dilution at STP outlet can't be ruled out. Heavy metals have inhibitory effect on heterotrophic organisms if exists beyond the threshold concentration i.e Cu-1.0mg/l, Pb- 0.1mg/l, Ni-1.0mg/l, Zn-1.0mg/l (as per Wastewater Engineering by Metcalf & Eddy, Table 2-13 page no 78; Annexure 19).
5. As per the analysis results of treated effluent sample collected from common- ETP final treated water storage tank concentration of pH- 7.0, TSS- 10mg/l, TDS-48mg/l, BOD- 04mg/l, COD- 27mg/l, Chloride-15mg/l, Phosphate- 0.06mg/l, Nitrate- 5.8mg/l, Colour- 21Hazen, Sulphate- BDL, Cyanide- BDL, Fe-0.002 mg/l, Mn-BDL, Ni-BDL, V- 0.09mg/l, Pb-BDL, As- BDL, Cd-BDL, Co- BDL, Cr-BDL, Cu-BDL, Sb-BDL, Se-BDL and Zn-0.01 mg/l has been found, this is being recycled for utilization in industrial processes within different manufacturing sections.
6. Analysis result of samples of recycled water used in different manufacturing sections i.e., glass, metal, wood & marble sections indicating that unit is recycling the treated waste water from common-ETP & common-STP to meet its industrial requirement.
7. The unit has been granted NOC from U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3/annum from 03 Borewells for industrial purpose, which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. Now, the previous NOC issued by CGWA for abstraction of 155KLD ground water for domestic purpose, which was valid till 21.12.2021, stands invalid.
8. The unit is maintaining daily records of the hazardous waste generation and disposal for tube light (fused), bulb & CFL (fused), used rubber gloves, old battery, used face masks, used cotton gloves, empty container, used oil, empty corrugated cartons and ETP sludge. The unit has submitted daily record of the haz. waste generation as well as disposal 116 to TSDF facility from Dec-2020 to June-2021, which has been verified.
9. The unit is sending the generated hazardous waste to the TSDF for which the unit is also maintaining manifest document (Form-10, as required under Rule 19 of the HOWM Rules, 2016). The unit has submitted the haz. waste disposal data (From-10) from Feb-2021 to June-2021 and Annual return (Form-4) for year: 2020-21.
10. The Unit has not maintained separate data for STP sludge generation as well as disposal. Unit shall ensure to maintain separate logbook for STP sludge generation and considering presence of heavy metals at STP inlet, the unit shall ensure disposal of the STP sludge to TSDF.
11. The unit has submitted a copy of report prepared by NEERI, Nagpur on "Water Quality Audit Report for M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, U.P." based on the study conducted by NEERI during the month of March-2021, which contains the assessment of water quantity used in various sections followed by water quality analysis, ensuring sustained operation of treatment systems and making water suitable. Average value for the month of March-2021, as mentioned in the submitted report (prepared by NEERI) and average values of 05 months (as per submitted logbook data from Feb-21 to June-21) and values observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 are compared in a table below:
Table 49: Comparison Average value for the month of March-2021, average values of 05 months (as per logbook data from Feb-21 to June-
21) and values observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 S. Criteria / Description As per As per CPCB, As per CPCB, No. NEERI, based on log based on 1ST based on book day of Joint log data for five inspection book data months (Feb- (dtd.30.6.21) for 21 to June-
one month 21)
(March-21)
Fresh water/Treated waste water from common-ETP/Common-STP used
1. Fresh Water withdrawal & 3504 / 31 17032/150 127.0 supply for drinking purpose to different sections i.e., =113.03 =113.54 glass, metal, wood, residential & VIP colony, general (office building), Avg. volume per day (KL per day)
2. Treated waste water 1440/31 8598/150 77 recycled from Common STP in toilet flushing (excluding 46.45 =55.32 green belt/horticulture and fire extinguishing) in different sections i.e., glass, metal, wood, residential & VIP colony.Average volume per day (KL per day)
3. Treated waste water 3766 / 31 17848.7/150 138.9 Recycled from Common ETP 117 (including MEE & ATFD =121.48 =118.9 condensate), to different sections i.e., glass, metal, ≈119.0 wood (common for marble and corrugation sections).
Average volume per day (KL per day)
4. Treated waste water 1640/31 6616/150 52.0 Recycled (fully consumed) from Common STP for use in =52.9 =44.11 green belt /horticulture and utilities excluding fire extinguishing* Total volume (KL) for reported period *Recycled waste water (136KL) was used in fire extinguishing in March-2021 Sewage/trade effluent generation
5. Total sewage (4012 /31) 21358/150 175 generation/sent to Common STP (from glass, metal, =129.42 =142.39 wood, residential & VIP colony, canteen). Average volume per day (KL per day)
6. Total trade effluent 3251/31 14462.9/150 111.2 (industrial effluent) generation/sent to Common =104.87 =96.42 ETP (from glass, metal, wood and corrugation sections). Average volume per day (KL per day) From the above table, it can be concluded that, average value of fresh Water withdrawal & supply to different sections, treated waste water recycled from Common STP in toilet flushing, treated waste water Recycled from Common ETP, Total sewage generation/ sent to Common STP and Total trade effluent (industrial effluent) generation/sent to Common ETP for the month of March-2021 (as per NEERI report), average values of 05 months (from Feb-21 to June-21) and values observed on the first day of joint inspection i.e., 30.06.21 are indicating the same trend. Some marginal difference is may be due to variation of worker's strength or season."
59. Report is signed by following officials:
i. Sh. Vivek Yadav, SDM, Amroha
ii. Mrs. Reena Satavan, Sc. 'D' CPCB, Delhi
iii. Sh. C. B Chourasia, Sc.'E', CPCB, Delhi
iv. Sh. J.P. Maurya, Regional Officer UPPCB, RO Bijnor
v. Dr. R.K Singh, Sc. 'D' CPCB, Delhi
vi. Sh. Tejas Y. Mankikar, Sc. B, CGWB, Lucknow
vii. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Assistant Env. Engineer, UPPCB,
Bijnor
viii. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Professor, IIT-Roorkee
ix. Sh. Vipin Kumar, RA-III, CPCB, Delhi
118
x. Ms. Shivangi Goswami, RA-II, CHCB, Delhi
xi. Sh. Muktesh Chaudhary, SRF, CPCB, Delhi
Objections/Reply dated 10.08.2021 filed by PP vide e-mail dated 11.08.2021 in Tribunal, against report dated 14/30.07.2021
60. The above reply/objection has been filed by PP stating that PP has done everything possible to ensure compliance of environmental norms and in fact has complied with the prescribed norms. Regarding objection on STP, PP said that no such point was raised in earlier reports dated 28.03.2019, 16.10.2019, 10.12.2020 or any intervening status reports but raised for the first time in the report dated 14/30.07.2021; the alleged non-compliances pertain to STP inlet, though what is material is the prescribed norms found in outlet, i.e., effluent coming from STP outlet; report is anomalous and misconceived; non-maintenance of logbook for STP sludge in not disputed but said that it is only technical requirement and in absence of finding of illegal STP sludge disposal, nothing can be said against PP; PP has used TSDF facility and sludge comprised both ETP and STP was disposed in accordance with law hence no vague objection is permissible. With regard to the metals found in STP inlet, PP in para 6 has said:
"(i) The law does not prescribe any parameters for the input water into the STP. The very same joint inspection report confirms in table 31 that the treated water from the STP outlet does not contain any pollutants beyond the specified norms (as extracted in Exhibit 1 (colly)). Thus, there is no environmental harm or violation of the law.
(ii) Even otherwise, admittedly, the joint inspection team has only stated that the STP inlet parameters "indicates" the mixing of industrial effluent, has stated that the compliance of the STP outlet is "doubtful" and/or has only indicated the "possibility" of dilution at the STP outlet with freshwater. At best, these are ambiguous and inconclusive inferences, and are not backed by any positive finding. In particular, the joint inspection report does not positively find any piping or injection systems to redirect industrial effluent into the STP. Nor has the joint inspection report found any mismatch/imbalance in quantity during the water audit (section 10 of the report) to suggest that some freshwater is being used to dilute the STP outlet. Therefore, at best, the inferences are 119 entirely conjectural in nature and mere speculation and cannot be the basis for any final conclusions.
(iii) The sampling and the analysis are not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed, inter alia, under Section 21-22 of the Water Act.
(iv) As a matter of fact, there is a credible and strong suspicion that there was a sampling error/contamination qua the STP inlet sample. This is because, (a) chemical oxygen demand or COD and biological oxygen demand or BOD cannot have been at such high range (5158 ppm and 1720 ppm) where the total dissolved salts (TDS) is only 676 ppm; high COD/BOD must necessarily also have very high TDS, which is not the case here,
(b) all prior reports of the same joint inspection team (on 16.10.2019 and 10.12.2020) do not report CN at all or such high contamination, (b) a contemporaneous independent report from NEERI dated 14.04.2021 (at table 4.3) contradicts the latest joint inspection report in terms of STP inlet characteristics. Said NEERI report is Annexure-11 to the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021, and was also filed with the UPPCB in the Respondent No. l's letter dated 05.04.2021, which is enclosed herewith as Exhibit
2. The relevant comparison table is extracted below for convenience:
S. Para- COMMON COMMON STP STP INLET WATER AS PER STP INLET No meters STP INLET INLET WATER 29.08.2019 JOINT WATER AS PER WATER AS AS PER INSPECTION REPORT 16.04.2021 PER 10.12.2020 (NB: 1 UNIT MOVED TO NEERI REPORT 30.07.2021 JOINT COMMON- STP AFTER TI-
JOINT INSPECTION ITS 2019 INSPICTION)
INSPECTION REPORT
REPORT
GLASS METAL RESIDENTI
DIVISION DIVISI ON AL STP
STP STP INLET
INLET INLET
1. pH 6.9 7.9 2.58 7.36 7.27 7.5
2. TSS 5464 489 135 148 48 790
3. TDS 676 (not (not (not (not 1465
reported) reported) reported) reported)
4. COD 5158 676 475 356 121 736
5. BOD 1720 291 169 134 49 370
6. Chloride 150 ').5-) 425 643 98 207
7. PO:4-P 6.13 10.15 0.12 0.89 1.90 4.4
8. NO3INI 20.6 4.4 527 19 1.4 ..
9. Color 94 147 98 96 25 (not reported)
10. Sulphate 31 100 413 63 33 55
11. NH3-N 91 151 59 188 14 56
12. Oil & - - (not (not (not (not reported)
Grease reported) reported) reported)
13. Cyanide 3.19 (not (not (not (not BDL
reported) reported) reported) reported)
14. As 0.09 0.04 BDL 0.03 0.01 (not reported)
15 Cd RD]. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
16 Co 0.05 0.02 0.09 BDL BDL 0.034
17 Cr 1.45 0.16 1.02 BDL BDL 16
18 Cu 7.18 1.55 14.15 0.04 0.06 4.6
19 Fe 75.60 4.74 19.37 0.54 1.41 31
20 Mn 3.0 0.3 1.05 0.11 0.33 1.13
21 Ni 10.42 5.55 60.10 0.03 0.13 6.3
120
22 Pl 3.44 0.07 0.08 BDL BDL 0.363
23 SI) 0.03 BDL BDL BDL BDL 8.9
24 Se BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (not reported)
25 V BDL 0.11 BDL BDL BDL (not reported)
26 Zn 17.35 3.5 93.08 0.02 0.43 8.9
24 MLSS - (not (not (not (not reported)
reported) reported) reported)
28 MLVSS - - (not (not (not (not reported)
reported) reported) reported)
29. Total 28 x 10n 9.2x 10° <1.8 33x 106 92x 106 18 x 108
Coliform
30. Faecal 44 x 1011 3.5 x 10° <1.8 17x 106 48x 105 (not reported)
Coliform
(v) The veracity of the inspection team's finding and inferences on
the STP are further cast into doubt because there is no corresponding finding that the unit is in fact using CN in any process, or how such CN can be produced as a by-
product in the industrial process. The unit has not used CN in its process, whether directly or indirectly, and all the raw material suppliers of Respondent No. 1 have also confirmed the same qua their products. And the joint inspection team has verified the industrial process used at the site at least three times, without ever observing any CN usage in the process. The joint inspection report also does not specify how the testing was done, i.e., the testing protocol followed to determine the presence of CN. It is settled law that expert reports/opinions are not always conclusive in nature, especially in the present case where the inferences have not been tested in a trial and credible questions are being raised.
(vi) Thus, there seems to be a clear sampling error/ contamination of the sample. It is noteworthy that the representative from IIT Roorkee was not present when the samples were drawn by the joint inspection team.
(vii) It is submitted that some small amount of heavy metals (other than CN) is expected in the STP inlet because the STP also treats water from the washrooms of the manufacturing units (including metal buffing section) as confirmed by the joint inspection report at paragraph (1) of section 8.4 of said report. Such water from the toilets/washrooms of the manufacturing/industrial divisions, will necessarily contain residues from the staff's shoes, clothing, water from the washing of their PPE, washroom floor cleaning water etc., which may contain metals/contaminants/pollutants from the industrial process. Therefore, the presence of some amount of heavy metals (other than CN) in the STP inlet, as seen in the NEERI Report dated 14.04.2021, as well as the earlier joint inspection reports of 16.10.2019 and 10.12.2020, is not unreasonable or uncommon.
(viii) Out of abundant caution, further testing of the STP inlet water (among others) was undertaken by two NABL accredited independent labs, one private (Shree Ram Testing Laboratories) and the other government (RTC Laboratory, MHSC-Department of Textiles), and both reports confirm there is no CN, and COD/BOD or other heavy metals are not detected at such high values. This is annexed as Exhibit 3 (colly). The values of COD/BOD or other heavy 121 metals are within the expected range, given the explanation
(vi) above, and well within the specified norms."
61. Further inferences of dilutions of STP outlet and mixing of industrial effluent into STP inlet is disputed in para 7 giving following reasons:
"(i) The joint inspection team was present in the unit, observed the STP in operation and collected samples during live operation of the STP. They did not observe or record any dilution of freshwater or any piping systems to divert industrial effluents. Therefore, for the joint inspection team to allege dilution or mixing of industrial effluents is nothing but conjecture.
(ii) The STP outlet has 2% less water than the STP inlet as per table 37 of the report, and the water audit at section 10 of the report and in particular, the water chart at internal page 64 of the report, establish beyond doubt the closed-loop of the water cycle within the unit. If freshwater/groundwater was being used for diluting wastewater, there would be an unexplained mismatch/imbalance in quantity in the water audit, which is not the case here. There was also no such unexplained mismatch/imbalance in quantity in the water audit conducted by NEERI as well as the CII, both of which were presented to the UPPCB vide letter dated_05 04.2021, previously annexed as Exhibit 2. Thus, dilution at any stage of the process is completely ruled out.
(iii) The alleged characteristics of the STP inlet showing very high contamination/pollution (table 31) seems to be worse than the untreated industrial effluent from the unit (tables 26/27 and table 29), i.e. pH, TSS, COD, CN, As, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, as seen in the extract below:
S. Parameters COMMON STP PRE-ETP-1 COMMON-ETP No INLET WATER AS INLET WATER INLET WATER PER 30.07.2021 AS PER AS PER JOINT 30.07.2021 30.07.2021 INSPECTION JOINT JOINT REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION (TABLE 31) REPORT REPORT (TABLES 26/27) (TABLE 29)
1. pH 6.9 5.9 8.9 2. TSS 5464 904 123
3. TDS 676 1808 2380 4. COD 5158 4090 136 5. BOD 1720 2110 53 6. Chloride 150 467 362
7. PO4-P 6.13 6.0 0.63
8. NO3.1s1 20.6 22.7 10.8 9. Color 94 60 14 10. Sulphate 31 50 336
11. NH3-N 91 (not reported) (not reported)
12. Oil & Grease - (not reported) (not reported)
13. Cyanide 3.19 0.23 BDI.
14. As 0.09 BDL BDL.
15 Cd BDL BM. BDI.
16 Co 0.05 0.03 0.01 17 Cr 1.45 0.63 0.22 18 Cu 7.18 3.02 0.63 122 19 Fe 75.60 97.97 5.29 20 Mn 3.0 1.5 0.32 21 Ni 10.42 34.0 7.98 22 Pb 3.44 0.24 0.02 23 Sb 0.03 BDL BDI.
24 Se BDL BDL BM_ 25 V BDL BDL BDL 26 Zn 17.35 73.2 7.26 24 MLSS - - -
28 MLVSS - - -
29. Total Coliform 28X1011 - -
30. Faecal Coliform 44X1011 - -
If industrial effluent from the unit was being mixed with the STP inlet as alleged, the water parameters of such mixed water could not be worse than the industrial effluent. Thus, the inference of industrial effluent mixing, is not only speculative but also erroneous and specious.
(iv) As per table 37 of this report, the average quantum of water in the STP inlet (4272 KL/month) is consistent with the STP inlet volume reported in Table 28 of the earlier report of 10.12.2020 (4028 KL/month). In said earlier report, the STP inlet was not contaminated as alleged this time. If industrial effluent was being mixed into the STP inlet as alleged, the STP inlet volume must have tremendously increased so as to have this high concentration of pollutants, which is not the case. Further, such mixing would have also led to tremendous increase in the TDS because the untreated industrial effluent has three times more TDS value (see table 29 of the report), which is also not seen in this case.
(v) Thus, it is obvious that sampling error/contamination of the sample is a better and more credible explanation than any other unfounded inference drawn by the joint inspection team."
62. With regard to maintenance of separate logbook for STP sludge, PP has disputed findings of joint Committee giving following reasons:
"(i) That there is no requirement in law to maintain logbooks separately for the STP sludge and ETP sludge generated from within the very same premises/unit.
(ii) Admittedly, all the sludge is stored for disposal at only one location within the premises, and the logbook maintained by the unit records the sludge quantum in totality on a daily-basis. The unified logbook has been confirmed by the inspection unit as well. The sludge is together disposed of in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules at the specified Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) of M/s. Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd. Kanpur, as per law. This has been confirmed in section 9 of the joint inspection report. Said TSDF has confirmed that the unit's sludge comprises both STP and ETP sludge, this confirmation being enclosed herewith as Exhibit 5.123
(iii) There is no finding in the report that the STP sludge is being disposed of illegally or been dumped in violation of the law. In fact, it is categorically concluded in section 9 of the report that the unit complies with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules fully. There is no finding of non-violation."
63. The inference drawn by joint Committee that compliance of STP is doubtful is assailed in para 8 of the objections stating that STP has a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) unit. It is well established that SBR with biological aerobic equipment can remove heavy metals with high efficiency which is precisely the situation and for this reference is made to exhibit-4 to the objections. PP said that there is no factual basis to cast doubt on the functioning of the capability of STP. Further observations of joint Committee that there was significant concentration of Cyanide in common STP inlet and some detectable concentration in pre ETP-1 inlet (0.23 mg/l) and pre ETP-1 outlet is disputed and challenged giving following reasons:
"(i) The law does not prescribe any parameters for the input water into the STP or the ETP or for the water in the intermediate stages. What matters is only the final treated water. The very same joint inspection report confirms in table 31 that the water from the STP outlet does not contain any CN, i.e. below detectable level (BDL). Similarly, the report acknowledges that the water from the pre-ETP-1 is further treated in the common-ETP system (para (3) of section 8.3 of the Report) and the treated output water from the common -
ETP system (table 29) shows that the water if within the prescribed norms. Thus, there is no environmental harm or violation of law.
(ii) The sampling and the analysis are not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed, inter alia, under Section 21-22 of the Water Act.
(iii) The joint inspection report also does not specify how the testing was done, i.e., the testing protocol followed to determine the various parameters
(iv) No CN was reported in the STP inlets or in the ETP inlets as per the joint inspection teams own reports from 10.12.2020 and 16.10.2019.
(v) No CN was reported in the ETP inlet in the NEERI report dated 14.04.2021 (at table 4.2) or in the test reports of IIT Rourkee dated 19.03.2021, both of which provided to the UPPCB vide letter dated 05.04.2021.
124
(vi) No CN was reported in the STP inlet in the aforesaid NEERI report of 14.04.2021 (at table 4.3), which is part of Exhibit 2 herein.
(v) Thus, it is evident that there is a clear sampling error/contamination of the samples from STP inlet, Pre- TP-1 inlet & Pre-ETP-1 outlet. It is noteworthy that the representative from IIT Roorkee was not present when the samples were drawn by the joint inspection team.
(vi) Out of abundant caution, further testing of the STP inlet water, Pre-ETP-1 inlet & Pre-ETP-1 outlet (and all the other inlets/outlets) was undertaken by two NABL accredited independent labs, one private (Shree Ram Testing Laboratories) and the other government (RTC Laboratory, MHSC-Department of Textiles), and both reports confirm there is no CN."
64. In para 18, PP has summarized its point wise reply to the findings of joint Committee, in para 13.4 with regard to environmental compliance status as under:-
" S. Observation Comments of Respondent No. No. 1 1 During the current joint inspection, all Joint Inspection Report confirms the manufacturing section i.e., glass that the unit is in compliance art ware, metal art ware, wooden art ware, marble art ware, thermocol block, corrugated sheet & carton mfg. sections, Pre-ETP-1, Common-ETP and Common-STP were found operational. 2 As per analysis results, the STP inlet Ex facie, both the finding and is not a representative sample of inference is erroneous, sewage as it shows significant inherently contradictory and concentration of BOD (1720 mg/l), COD anomalous for the reasons (5158 mg/l) and heavy metals (CN-3.19 already provided in paras 3-8 of mg/l, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu-7.18 mg/l, Fe- the present Reply. 75.60 mg/l, Mn-3.0 mg/l, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn-17.35 mg/l), which are not representing the characteristics of sewage and indicates the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic sewage. 3 As per the analysis results of treated Joint inspection confirms that sewage from common STP outlet , unit is in compliance and that concentration of pH-7.2, Oil& Grease- the treated STP water is recycled BDL, BOD-02 mg/l, COD-21 mg/l, Fe- for use, inter alia, in industrial 0.08 mg/l, Mn-0.05 mg/l, Ni - 0.06 mg/l, activity as well as for the V-0.12 mg/l, Pb-BDL, Cyanide BDL, As residential areas. The - 0.04 mg/l, Cd-BDL, Co-BDL, Cr. BDL, parameters specified are all well Cu- 0.03mg/l, Se-BDL and Zn-0.02 within accepted norms. mg/l has been found, this is being recycled for utilization in domestic and utility purpose within different 125 manufacturing sections of unit as well as in colonies. 4 As per Central Public Health & Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Environmental Engineering (MLSS) is a measurement of Organization (CPHEEO) manual on concentration of suspended sewage and sewage treatment solids, in the aeration tank systems-2013 Part A Engineering, during the activated sludge typical process parameters for SBR process. The aeration tank is configurations mentioned in Table No the SBR, where beneficial 5.57 at page no 5-198 (Annexure-18), microorganisms are employed MLSS concentration flow and to remove/breakdown/scrub intermittent decant is 3,500- the contaminants. 5,000mg/l for optimum operation of There is no prescribed standard SBR however, as per the analysis by law in terms of the MLSS results of aeration tank MLSS concentration to be maintained. concentration was 16141mg/1: The reference to the CPHEEO is indicating that periodic removal of actually misleading, in as much sludge is not taking place thus STP is as the very same manual not operating properly. expressly states that the design parameters specified therein are for information purposes only. There are no mandatory guidelines specified. The complete relevant extracts of the CPHEEO manual is enclosed therewith as Exhibit 7. Such technical remarks by the joint inspection team are misleading and take away the credibility of the unfounded inferences, apart STP inlet has significant from also camouflaging the fact concentration of heavy metals (CN- that the unit has achieved all the 3.19 mg/I, Cr-1.45 mg/l, Cu- 7.18 compliances. mg/l, Fe-75.60 mg/I, Mn-3.0 mg/1, Ni-10.42 mg/l, Pb-3.44 mg/l, Zn- The law only prescribes the 17.35 mg/l) however no separate treated waster water effluent treatment unit for heavy metal outlet parameters, and removal exists in the existing admittedly, the treated common-STP, even though the wastewater, in this case, is well STP-outlet shows 100% reduction within environmental norms. in Cyanide (from 3.19mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction in Chromium (from As a matter of scientific fact, the 1.45mg/l to BDL), 100% reduction MLSS value must be in Lead (from 3.44mg/l to BDL), maintained/kept depending on 99% reduction in Nickel (from the various climatic and other 10.42mg/l to 0.06mg/l), 99.8% environmental conditions that reduction in Zinc (from 17.35mg/l affect or vary the microbiological to 0.02mg/l), 99.8% reduction in growth. For instance, in the prior Iron (from 75.6mg/l to 0.06mg/l), joint infection report of 99.6% reduction in Copper (from 10.12.2020 (winter), the MLSS 7.18mg/l to 0.03mg/l) indicating value was maintained at around possibility of dilution at STP outlet 10,000, whereas in the latest can't be ruled out. inspection report (summer), the MLSS was maintained at a Heavy metals have inhibitory effect higher level of 16,000. on heterotrophic organisms -if exists beyond the threshold concentration i.e. As a matter of scientific fact, an Cu-1.0mg/l, Pb- 0.1mg/l, Ni-1.0mg/l, increased MLSS value merely Zn-1.0mg/l (as per Wastewater denotes lesser frequency in 126 Engineering by Metcalf & Eddy, Table removal of sludge and an 2-13 page no 78; Annexure 19). increased time period (SRT, i.e. solid retention time) where the microorganisms are kept activated for breakdown/removal of contaminants. By maintaining a higher MLSS value and higher SRT value, the unit is actually reducing the quantum of sludge generated from the STP. This is advantageous, as confirmed from the relevant extracts of the CPHEEO manual previously enclosed as Exhibit 7. There is nothing illegal in this respect, so long as the sludge is disposed off in accordance with law and the treated output water is within norms. These conditions are fulfilled by the Respondent No. I Ex facie, both the finding and inference are erroneous, inherently contradictory and anomalous for the reasons mentioned in paras 3-8 of the present Reply. 5 As per the analysis results of treated Joint inspection confirms that effluent sample collected from unit is in compliance and that common-ETP final treated water treated ETP water is recycled for storage tank concentration of pH- 7.0, use in industrial activity. The TSS- 10mg/l, TDS- 48rng/l, BOD- parameters specified are all well 04mg/l, COD-27mg/l, Chloride- within the accepted norms. 15mg/l, Phosphate-0.06me, Nitrate- 5.8mg/l, Colour- 21 Hazen, Sulphate- BDL, Cyanide- BDL, Fe-0.002 mg/l, Mn-BDL, Ni-BDL, V- 0.09mg/l, Pb- BDL, As-BDL, Cd-BDL, Co-BDL, Cr- BDL, Cu-BDL, Sb-BDL, Se-BDL and Zn-0.01 mg/l has been found, this is being recycled for utilization in industrial processes within different manufacturing sections. 6 Analysis result of samples of Joint inspection confirms that recycled water used in different unit is in compliance and that manufacturing sections i.e., glass, only recycled water (not metal, wood & marble sections freshwater) is used in industrial indicating that unit is recycling the activity. treated waste water from common- ETP & common-STP to meet its industrial requirement. 127 7 The unit has been granted NOC from Joint inspection confirms that U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department unit has the required (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply approval as per law to draw Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, groundwater, from Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) to abstract 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 In fact, the unit is drawing operational days totaling 75,000 significantly less groundwater m3/annum from 03 Borewells for (113 KLD) than it is permitted to industrial purpose, which is valid do by law (250 KLD). from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. Now, the previous NOC issued by CGWA for abstraction of 155KLD ground water for domestic purpose, which was valid till 21.12.2021, stands invalid. 8 The unit is maintaining daily records of Joint inspection confirms that the hazardous waste generation and the unit is in compliance disposal for tube light (fused), bulb & CFL (fused). used rubber gloves, old battery, used face masks, used cotton gloves, empty container, used oil, empty corrugated cartons and ETP sludge. The unit has submitted daily record of the haz. waste generation as well as disposal to TSDF facility from Dec-2020 to June- 2021, which has been verified. 9 The unit is sending the generated Joint inspection confirms that hazardous waste to the TSDF for the unit is in compliance which the unit is also maintaining manifest document (Form-10, as required under Rule 19 of the HOWM Rules, 2016). The unit has submitted the haz. waste disposal data (From- 10) from Feb-2021 to June-2021 and Annual return (Form-4) for year: 2020-21. 10 The Unit has not maintained separate The unit has, w.e.f. from data for STP sludge generation as 15.07.2021, i.e. one day well as disposal. Unit shall ensure to after the joint inspection maintain separate logbook for STP team raised this query, sludge generation and considering started maintaining a presence of heavy metals at STP separate log book for the
inlet, the unit shall ensure disposal of ETP sludge and the STP the STP sludge to TSDF. sludge. A sample of such separate logbooks are enclosed as Exhibit 6 (colly).
That there is no requirement in law to maintain logbooks separately for the STP sludge and ETP sludge generated from within the very same premises/unit.
Admittedly, all the sludge is stored for disposal at only one location within the premises, and the logbook maintained by the unit records the sludge quantum in totality on a daily-
128
basis. The unified logbook has been confirmed by the inspection unit as well. The sludge is together disposed of in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules at the specified Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) of M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur, as per law. This has been confirmed in section 9 of the joint inspection report. Said TSDF has confirmed that the unit's sludge comprises both STP and ETP sludge, this confirmation being enclosed herewith as Exhibit 5.
There is no finding in the report that the STP sludge is being disposed of illegally or been dumped in violation of the law.
In fact, it is categorically concluded in section 9 of the report that the unit complies with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules fully.
There is no finding of non-
violation.
11 Joint inspection confirms that The unit has submitted a copy of report the unit is in compliance and prepared by NEERI, Nagpur on "Water that only treated water (not Quality Audit Report for M/s C.L. freshwater) is recycled for use in Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd., Amroha, U.P." industrial activity. based on the study conducted by NEERI during the month of March-
2021, which contains the assessment of water quantity used in various sections followed by water quality analysis, ensuring sustained operation of treatment systems and making water suitable. [... not reproduced for sake of brevity] "
65. In para 19, 20 and 21, PP has sought to submit point wise reply to the compliance report considered in Tribunal's order dated 04.02.2021, Committee's report dated 05.08.2020 and 10.12.2020, mostly repetition of earlier objections which were already rejected. Hence, we find no reason to repeat the same at this stage. However, we may point out that report dated 05.08.2020 was considered on 06.08.2020 and Tribunal recorded a 129 finding that PP is playing fraud. Tribunal accepted report dated 05.08.2020 vide order dated 06.08.2020. Against this order, PP filed IA 273/2020 which was considered on 03.12.2020 and IA was rejected. Further inspection dated 10.12.2020 resulted in report dated 29.01.2021 where against PP filed objections which were considered on 04.02.2021 an objections were rejected and report with some modifications was accepted. Written submission dated 10.08.2021 by PP
66. PP also filed written submission dated 10.08.2021 in two parts, i.e., Part-A and Part-B.
67. In Part-A, facts in chronological order are given stating that PP commenced its unit at the present premises in 2004; industrial unit is spread over an area of 55 acres, comprising factory units, residential blocks, guesthouses, canteens etc.; PP is engaged in the production of artwares in wood, glass, metal, marble having a turnover of about ₹550 crores in the financial year 2019-20, employing more than 7500 persons and about 350 persons stay at the unit premises; CGWA granted NOC on 15.11.2012; area of the unit was non-notified under guidelines of 2012 and PP did not operate water intensive industry, did not require separate NOC for abstraction of ground water; thus, PP abstracted ground water for domestic as well as industrial purposes from 2004 to November, 2016; unit had implemented 100% recharge system recharging ground water equal to the amount of ground water consumed; on 02.11.2016, PP submitted application seeking NOC for abstraction of ground water for commercial as well as domestic purposes; unit is not water intensive industry but location was categorized as over- exploited; hence, NOC was issued on 21.12.2016 permitting 155 KLD for domestic and drinking purposes and 175 KLD for industrial purposes; total 330 KLD of ground water was permitted to be extracted from two 130 borewells; NOC was for a period of two years; before expiry of NOC on 20.12.2018, PP applied for renewal on 08.12.2018 and it was pending when OA was filed wherein report was called by Tribunal without issuing notice to PP. Thereafter, PP has given reference to various reports and orders of Tribunal and it would be appropriate to reproduce PP's own version in Part-A from Sr. no. 11 to 40 as under:
" S. Date Particulars
No.
11 28.03.2019 Pursuant to the Hon'ble NGT's order dated
08.03.2019, a joint inspection was carried out. In the Joint Inspection Report, it was noted that while the Respondent No. 1 had six (6) borewells, it was extracting water from only two (2) of them. The Joint Committee inter alia recommended closure of the additional four (4) borewells. This recommendation was complied with by the Respondent No. 1. The report otherwise established that the unit was not discharging any water into River Ganga/Ram Ganga and that it was operating with proper CTOs as per law.
12 29.08.2019 The Hon'ble NGT considered the Action Taken Report dated NIL submitted by Joint Committee and directed Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to file an updated status report and assess compensation to be recovered from the Appellant. While doing so, Hon'ble NGT noted the Appellant had already closed the additional borewells.
13 16.10.2019 A joint inspection team conducted an inspection of the unit as per the directions of the Hon'ble NGT dated 29.08.2019.
14 29.11.2019 The UPPCB issued a letter stating that the groundwater extraction by the unit is within norms, though this letter confirming compliance has been rejected by this Hon'ble NGT in is order dated 03.12.2019 15 02.12.2019 Pursuant to observations communicated during the joint inspection (the final report not having been shared yet), the unit filed a letter dated 02.12.2019, inter alia: (i) evidencing with photographs that the unit was ZLD and nothing was being drained into the nearby pond, (ii) test reports confirming no CN in the water samples, and (iii) and documentation showing that hazardous waste was being disposed off in accordance with law, to an approved TSDF.
16 03.12.2019 A Joint Inspection Report was filed on 03.12.2019 before this Hon'ble NGT, based on an inspection conducted on 16.10.2019. As per .the Joint Inspection Report three (3) of the borewells (being Borewell No. 1, 2 and 5) were not in operation 131 at all and another one (being Borewell No. 6) had not been operational after August 2019.
This Report was filed before Hon'ble NGT, without being served on the Respondent No. 1.
Unfortunately, reply from the unit dated 02.12.2019 was not even considered or addressed in the final report. The joint inspection team recommended imposition of a total Environmental Compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,49,71,157 (Rupees Two Crore, Forty-Nine Lakh, Seventy-One Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty-
Seven Only) for (i) alleged violations of effluent discharge, (ii) illegal hazardous waste disposal and
(iii) illegal ground water extraction.
17 04.12.2019 The Hon'ble NGT, vide Order dated 04.12.2019 accepted the recommendations of the Joint Committee Report filed on 03.12.2019 without giving the Respondent No. 1 the opportunity to reply to the findings in the report or otherwise defend itself. The Hon'ble NGT directed the Respondents to take action in accordance with law.
18 January - The Respondents had issued show cause notices July 2020 pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 04.12.2019.
The Respondent No. 1 herein had filed detailed responses to the same contesting totally incorrect factual findings in the Joint Inspection Report filed on 03.12.2019, as well as the illegal and arbitrary imposition of penalty without jurisdiction, and alternatively, had sought a reduction in penalty amounts. However, the Respondents, without any application of mind, summarily disregarded all contentions and merely imposed the penalty amounts as is. The Respondent UPPCB on 01.07.2020 directed the Respondent No. 1 to approach the Respondent No. 3/CPCB for contesting the findings/imposition of penalty and the Respondent No. 1 accordingly filed applications on 21.07.2020 with CPCB, reiterating its submissions on the illegal imposition of penalty or alternatively, a reduction in the penalty amounts. In this interregnum period, based on its responses, the Respondent No. 1 had deposited a total amount of Rs.38,63,600 under protest as environmental compensation. No reply was received from the CPCB on the aforesaid applications at that time.
19 05.08.2020 The Joint Committee filed a further Action Taken status report before the Hon'ble NGT, which was also not served on the Respondent No. 1. In said report of 05.08.2020, it was recorded that the Respondent No.1 had obtained a NOC dated 23.04.2020 for ground water extraction of 155 KLD for domestic and drinking purpose only.
This report did not observe any effluent discharge or illegal disposal of hazardous waste.
20 06.08.2020 On the said date, despite repeated follow-
up by the Respondent No.1's counsel with the 132 Registry of the Hon'ble NGT, the Virtual Conference (VC) link for the hearing did not reach Respondent No. l's counsels on time, and in fact was only received at 1.25 pm, after the hearing in the matter, which was Item No. 2 was over. As a result, Respondent No. 1's counsel was unable to join the hearing. In the absence of the Respondent No. 1 being represented before it, Hon'ble NGT passed its order observing that the Respondent No. 1 had played fraud in obtaining the NOC for groundwater purposes by falsely representing that the purpose of the extraction was residential and further concluded, 'Action needs to the taken in this regard as per the law of the land'.
21 10.08.2020- Respondent No. 1 filed IA 273/2020 seeking 13.08.2020 clarification of the order dated 06.08.2020 citing non-availability of VC link that prevented their appearance during the hearing. Respondent No. 1 also craved leave to file appropriate replies and documents to contest the findings.
22 30.09.2020 The pending applications under the Air Act and the Water Act filed by the Respondent No. 1 in December 2019 were suddenly rejected, inter alia, for failure to pay the compensation amount covered under the Hon'ble NGT's orders. Review applications against the same were filed and the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB invited the Respondent No. 1 to re-file the renewal applications under the Air Act and the Water Act, which were duly filed on 09.12.2020.
23 16.10.2020 In the meantime, the Respondent No. 1 filed a & detailed reply to the findings of the Compliance 05.11.2020 Report dated 05.08.2020 with the Respondent Nos.
2-3/UPPCB & CPCB, along with supporting information and evidence.
24 27.10.2020 Since the aforesaid IA 273/2020 was not listed for hearing despite several requests for urgent hearing, due to the fear of adverse actions, Respondent No. l approached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 23355 of 2020 challenging the orders dated 04.12.2019 and 06.08.2020.
25 04.11.2020 NOC issued by U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) via Certificate No: N00019504 under {UIS10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019}, which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. As per NOC, the project proponent is allowed to abstract 250 m3/day (KLD) for 300 operational days totalling 75,000 m3/annum for both industrial and domestic purpose.
26 16.11.2020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 23355 of 2020 was pleased to direct that the IA 273/2020 be disposed of expeditiously and granted 133 leave to the Respondent No. 1 to challenge these orders dated 04.12.2019 and 06.08.2020, as well as any other subsequent order of the Hon'ble NGT. The corrected version of this order dated 16.11.2020 was made available on 26.11.2020.
27 03.12.2020 The Hon'ble NGT, vide its order dated 03.12.2020 dismissed the IA 273/2020, rejecting replies of Respondent No. 1 and directed other Respondents to undertake a water audit of the Respondent No. l's unit.
28 09.12.2020 Vide email dated 09.12.2020, the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB intimated that the applications for renewal of consent to operate under the Air Act and the Water Act would be examined subject to the inspection to be undertaken as per the Hon'ble NGT's directions. The CTO renewal applications, were thus kept pending.
29 10.12.2020 Another Joint Inspection was undertaken on 10.12.2020 as per the directions of the Hon'ble NGT dated 03.12.2020 30 19.12.2020 Respondent 1 filed writ petition before High Court at Lucknow, later numbered as W.P (MB) 95/2021, challenging actions of Respondent No. 2/UPPCB qua Respondent 1's applications for renewal of CTOs under Air Act and Water Act. This writ is currently pending and there are no substantive orders passed.
31 30.01.2021 The joint inspection report dated 10.12.2020 was uploaded on the website of the Hon'ble NGT on 30.01.2020, though this was not served on the Respondent No. 1. Upon review, it was noticed that the Report inter-alia,
(i) expressly confirmed that all prior recommendations from the earlier inspection report were complied with.
(ii) expressly confirmed that treated water from STP and ETP were being used for industrial process. The Report also noted that there is a mismatch in the quantum and the committee surmised that some ground water was still being used. Accordingly, a further independent water audit was recommended after installation of additional meters at every point of consumption/utilization (which was a new recommendation indicated to the Respondent No. 1 for the first time and does not form part of any legal requirement).
(iii) did not find any effluent discharge in violation of law;
(iv) did not find any illegal disposal of hazardous waste;
(v) expressly acknowledged that the representation for reduction/waiver in penalty was pending with the UPPCB and was to be disposed off after granting an opportunity of hearing;
(vi) The Unit's application for renewal of the consent to operate under the Air Act and the 134 Water Act, were kept pending subject to the outcome of the inspection.
The report, however, did note that there was high concentration of Cyanide in the output of the ETP and thus, human contact should be avoided. However, the ETP system was anyway ZLD (zero liquid discharge system) since it was recycled back into the industrial process, and plus the ignored that the ETP output is further filtered in an UF/RO/MEE/ATFD system, and the final treated water was without any CN and otherwise, well within norms. In addition, the finding on presence of CN was incorrect, anomalous and inconsistent with all the previous inspection reports as well as the NEERI report dated 10.12.2020, all of which were on record.
32 03.02.2021 When the Respondent No. 1 became aware of this new report which was not served on the Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 immediately filed a short reply and sought leave to file a further reply. Among others:
(vii) The Respondent No. 1 reiterated that the discrepancy/mismatch in quantum of water consumed as observed by the inspection team was a result of ignoring one critical system of the recycling plant that separately supplied around 28.5 KLD.
(viii) The Respondent No. 1 reiterated that the calculation of ground water requirement for domestic/drinking purpose seen in the report is erroneous being inconsistent with the CGWA norms, and that if re-
calculated as per CGWA norms, the requirement for drinking/domestic purpose would be 158.5 KLD whereas the Respondent No. 1 has only withdrawn 114 KLD, which is well within the limits.
(ix) Since installation of flow meters at every single consumption points was a new requirement, Respondent No. 1 has started the process and installation was underway.
(x) The Respondent No. 1 had engaged NEERI to undertake a detailed water audit as required.
(xi) Use of CN was denied and even otherwise, the Respondent No. 1 confirmed that it was being filtered out in the UF/RO/MEE /ATFD system and thus, it is not discharged and that there is no human contact.
(xii) There was no other violation observed and the unit has otherwise been found compliant.
(xiii) The Respondent No. 1 was awaiting a reply from the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB 135 on the waiver/reduction in compensation amount and that the Appellant will comply accordingly.
( x i v ) The Respondent No. 1 had already filed its renewal for the consent to operate under Air Act and the Water Act and that the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB had indicated it would revert after the inspection.
33 04.02.2021 The Hon'ble NGT passed the order dated 04.02.2021, rejecting the reply of the Respondent No. 1 and accepting all inferences of the Joint Inspection Report as final and conclusive, and directing closure of the Respondent No. 1's unit until satisfactory compliance takes place, even though the Joint Inspection Report did not recommend any such closure, for the simple reason that all prior compliances had been undertaken. The Hon'ble NGT, however, directed that a further inspection be carried out to ensure that no heavy metals were being discharged by the Respondent No. 1 and that a water audit be conducted, once again by the CPCB, along with IIT Roorkee. The Hon'ble NGT further directed that a copy of the same be provided to the Respondent No. 1 for filing of reply to the same.
34 05.04.2021 Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble NGT and the recommendation of the UPPCB, the Respondent No.1, inter alia, filed with the UPPCB:
(i) an independent water audit report dated 26.03.2021, by the CII;
(ii) the testing done by IIT Roorkee on the inlet and outlet water of ETP, showing no cyanide content at all; and
(iii) a water audit report by NEERI, inter alia showing no cyanide content at all, whether in inlet or outlet.
35 05.04.2021- Several communications ensued between the 03.07.2021 Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB, in relation to the pending CTOs under the Air Act and the Water Act, whereunder the Respondent No. 2/UPPCB renewed the CTOs on an interim basis from time to time, further extensions being subject to the outcome of the pending joint inspection report to be undertaken pursuant to the Order dated 04.02.2021 of the Hon'ble NGT. The Respondent No. 1 has pursued appropriate statutory remedies qua such interim extensions, praying for a complete renewal of the CTOs for a period of 5 years, in accordance with the law, which are also pending at present. The Respondent No. 1 also file appropriate representations with the UPPCB in this respect. 136 36 30.06.2021- Pursuant to the direction in the Order dated 02.07.2021 04.02.2021 of the Hon'ble NGT, joint inspection was carried out at the Respondent No. l's premises. 37 03.07.2021 Respondent No. 1 filed representations with the & UPPCB, seeking further extension of the CTOs but 02.08.2021 without any reply.
38 23.07.2021 Pursuant to the direction in the Order dated 04.02.2021 of the Hon'ble NGT, the Respondent No. 1 herein sought for a copy of the joint inspection report from the other Respondents, for consideration and filing of appropriate reply. 39 30.07.2021 The Joint Inspection Report, along with a compliance report, was uploaded on the website of the Hon'ble NGT on 30.07.2021 (a Friday) after business hours and a copy of the same was emailed to the Respondent No. 1 on 30.07.2021, after business hours.
Upon review, it was noticed that the Report, inter alia,
(i) No CN is being discharged by the Respondent No. 1 into the environment.
(ii) The unit has not polluted the groundwater with any discharge or by any illegal sludge disposal.
(iii) The inspection team did not find any effluent discharge in violation of law.
Instead, it has been concluded that the output from the common-STP is being recycled into industrial process, boiler, toilet flushing and horticulture.
Similarly, the output from the common-
ETP is being recycled into industrial process and utility (air scrubber, air washer, cooling towers etc.) within the plant. The output the treated water from the STP/ETP systems are well within the specified norms.
(iv) No groundwater is being used for industrial purpose whatsoever and that only treated water from STP and ETP was being used for industrial process.
(v) The joint inspection has found that the unit is drawing significantly less amount of groundwater (113 KLD) than what is permitted to do so by law (250 KLD), inasmuch as the unit recycles the treated STP/ETP water for industrial and domestic purpose.
(vi) The inspection team did not find any illegal disposal of hazardous waste or violation of any provision of the Hazardous Waste Management Rules.
137
(vii) All environmental compensation demanded as per prior order/reports have been paid and there are no dues in this respect.
(viii) all prior recommendations from the earlier joint committee inspection report dated 10.12.2020 & 16.10.2019, and all Hon'ble NGT orders including the order dated 04.02.2021 are complied with.
(ix) It is to be noted that the samples were drawn on the date where the representative of IIT Roorkee was not present.
40 10.08.2021 The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply to the aforesaid inspection report filed on 30.07.2021, inter alia:
(i) clarifying that all prior recommendations have been complied with;
(ii) that the limited issue of CN or other heavy metals in the STP inlet, which was being raised for the first time, is irrelevant in fact and in law inasmuch as the law does not prescribe in parameters at the input level. The Report itself confirms that the ETP and STP outlet are well within the specified parameters and thus, there is no violation of the law.
(iii) that similarly, the minor amount of CN in the pre- ETP-1 /pre-EPT-2 were also irrelevant inasmuch as the treated ETP outlet water was well within norms. In any event, the Respondent No. 1 demonstrated in its reply that there is strong/credible basis to conclude that there was some sampling error or contamination in the samples drawn.
(iv) that the allegation of CN in the inlet pipes was contradicted by the reports from IIT Roorkee.
(v) demonstrating that the findings on the STP inlet sample results are anomalous and inherently contradictory and that instead, there is strong/credible basis to conclude that there was some sampling error or contamination in the samples drawn;
(vi) that any adverse inferences based on STP inlet parameters alone, are speculative and conjecture and ought to be rejected.
(vii) that the limited issue of keeping a separate logbook for the STP sludge was being complied once it was raised and that in any event, this was only a technical requirement inasmuch as there was no finding of illegal STP sludge disposal. On the contrary, the TSDF facility had confirmed that the sludge from the unit comprised both ETP and STP sludge, which disposal is taking place in accordance "
with law.138
68. Part-B comprises Written Submissions/Legal Submissions raised by PP and the same are:
"1. The present matter concerns the alleged violations of environmental norms of the Respondent No. 1/C.L. Exports, initiated in 2019. It is humbly submitted that the entire case, right from the initial stage, was based on conjecture and speculation, was a roving and fishing expedition, and ought to have been dismissed in the first instance.
2. The Original Application was initiated as a method to harass and exploit the unit that has been functioning without any allegations of violation for more than 25 years. As is evident from the above list of dates and as further demonstrated below, almost every allegation of non-compliance against the unit stands contradicted in a subsequent report an. For instance, the entire litigation was initiated on the premise of the unit allegedly discharging water into the river ganga and this was proven incorrect in the subsequent report of the CPCB in March 2019 itself. Similarly, another premise of the Original Application was that the unit was operating without consent to operate (CTO) under the Air Act and Water Act, whereas the CPCB contradicted this in March 2019 itself.
3. The only other premise of the Original Application, as filed in 2019 was the alleged use of groundwater for industrial purpose. However, as demonstrated below, the unit was in full compliance with the law as it stood then. The unit had a complete NOC from the CGWA till 2018 for using groundwater for both domestic and industrial purpose, and the renewal application filed on 08.12.2018 was pending at the time this litigation commenced. The CGWA did not reject the renewal request, nor did it communicate, whether as guidelines or otherwise, that the unit was prohibited from withdrawing groundwater. It appears that the CGWA was still in the process of formulating guidelines for groundwater use, pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble NGT in another litigation, where the Respondent No. 1 was not a party. Thus, at the time the litigation commenced, there was no Parliamentary law or statutory notification, or any direction communicated to the unit in this respect, and the position was ambiguous as best given the ongoing formulation of the guidelines.
4. Even the CGWA confirmed to this Hon'ble Court in its letter dated 29.11.2019 that the unit was in compliance. Nevertheless, the joint inspection report recommended otherwise, and this Hon'ble Court agreed with the recommendations. Nonetheless, as demonstrated below, as soon as this Hon'ble NGT passed the order dated 04.12.2019, the unit completely overhauled its systems to start using treated water from STP and ETP for industrial use, without using groundwater for industrial use.
5. Despite all this, with each report from the CPCB, new issues were being raised time and again, only to be proven incorrect in a 139 subsequent report. For instance, it was alleged in the report of 10.12.2020 that there was a mismatch in the water audit, inferring the potential diversion of groundwater for industrial use. Yet, in the latest report of 30.07.2021, the joint inspection has accepted that the water audit is perfectly correct and there was no mismatch in quantum and that no industrial groundwater is being used for industrial purpose. Similarly, none of reports of 28.03.2019, 16.10.2019, 10.12.2020 or any of the intervening status update reports raised any issue about the STP. Yet, it is humbly submitted, unfounded issues were raised about the STP for the very first time on 30.07.2021. The ex facie absurdity of the new allegations are apparent from the fact that alleged non-compliances are all pertain to the STP inlet water whereas what matters, in law and in fact, is whether the treated output water is within norms.
6. It is submitted that the allegations/findings against the unit are solely based upon the inspection report without addressing any factual discrepancies or without affording the Respondent No. 1 opportunity to address to such allegations and without confirming whether the sampling and testing have been done in accordance with the law. In particular, the sampling and the analysis are not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed, inter alia, under Section 21-22 of the Water Act, and the joint inspection report also does not specify how the testing was done, i.e., the testing protocol followed to determine the various parameters. The issue becomes particularly critical since the only open issue concerns the industrial effluents and multiple independent testing reports directly contradict the allegations that the water sampled from the unit's premises are not in conformity with the applicable norms.
7. Thus, it is humbly submitted that this litigation has basically been a fishing, expedition, with each new reports alleging new non-compliances only to be contradicted subsequently. It is humbly submitted that the unit is fully compliant.
Groundwater issue - unit is fully compliant
8. The case was originally initiated on the presumption that the unit was using groundwater for industrial purpose, allegedly in violation of law. As the above list of dates establishes beyond doubt, when the CGWA notified for the first time in 2016 that NOC is required for drawing groundwater, the Respondent No. 1 applied for and obtained such NOC, valid until December 2018. This NOC was for domestic/drinking purpose (155 KLD) as well as for industrial use (275 KLD). Thereafter, the renewal for such NOC was also filed on record on 08.12.2018, but was perpetually kept pending, without either a rejection or grant.
9. When the case was initiated in 2019 and the Joint Inspection took place on 16.10.2019, there was no Parliamentary law or statutory notification prohibiting the Respondent No. 1 from drawing groundwater for any purpose. Even 140 the NOC renewal request filed on 08.12.2018 with the CGWA was pending only (not rejected). Nevertheless, the joint inspection report of 16.10.2019 recommended imposition of compensation for use of groundwater for industrial use. Although the Respondent No. 1 vehemently objected to the same, inter Cilia, vide its letters dated 02.12.2019, 17.06.2020, 21.07.2020, 16.10.2020 and 05.11.2020, these contentions were never addressed by the UPPCB/CPCB. The CGWA did not reject the renewal request, nor did it communicate, whether as guidelines or otherwise, that the unit was prohibited from withdrawing groundwater. It appears that the CGWA was still in the process of formulating guidelines for groundwater use, pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble NGT in another litigation, where the Respondent No. 1 was not a party.
10. In the interest of continuing the business and providing gainful employment of more than 6500/7000 employees, the Respondent No. 1 paid this compensation amount (as now corrected and re-quantified), under protest, reserving the right to seek a refund in accordance with law.
11. Thereafter, i.e., after 04.12.2019 (order from the Hon'ble NGT), the Respondent No. 1 installed state-of-the-art common--STP, common-ETP and filtration/recycling systems, such that the treated water from the STP and ETP was recycled for use in the industrial processes.
Groundwater was being drawn only for the
domestic/drinking purpose as far as the
toilets/washrooms in the manufacturing units, as well as for the residential colonies within the premises.
12. Moreover, during the pendency of the present matter, the relevant ministry has issued the gazette notification bearing S.O. 3289 (E) dated 24.09.2020, which is the applicable new statutory framework for grant of NOC to use groundwater.
Pursuant to this new notification, an NOC has been issued by U.P.G.W.D (Ground water department (Namami Gange & Rural Water Supply Department), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) via Certificate No: N00019504 under {UIS10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act, 2019), which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026. As per the NOC, the project proponent is allowed to abstract 250m3 /day (KLD) for 300 operational days totaling 75,000 m3 /annum from 3 Borewells for both domestic and industrial purpose, to the unit.
13. Going by the latest joint inspection team report of 30.07.2021, it is now fully confirmed that the unit is not using groundwater for industrial use and this has been since the Hon'ble NGT's order dated 04.12.2019. Since 2020, the output from the common-STP is being recycled into industrial process, boiler, toilet flushing and horticulture. Similarly, the output from the common-ETP is being recycled into industrial process and utility (air scrubber, air washer, cooling towers etc.) within the plant. This now stands confirmed by the joint inspection team report of 30.07.2021 (Joint Compliance 141 Report dated 30.07.2021, Section 13.2, Concluding Remarks @ Para iv).
14. The latest joint inspection team 30.07.2021 further confirms that the total groundwater being drawn is only around 113 KLD, which is even less than 50% of the amount the Respondent No. 1 is authorised to draw as per the latest approval issued in accordance with law. (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Section 6.2 @ Table 2)
15. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted that the present matter, as far as the issue of groundwater withdrawal and use for industrial purpose, stands closed.
Alleged Effluent Discharge into River Ram Ganga/Ganga River
- unit found in compliance
16. The case as initiated in 2019, also alleged that the unit was discharging industrial effluent into the river Ram Ganga. The unit is actually located several kilometres (approx. 20 km) from the river Ram Ganga, and even farther from river Ganga (approx. 50 kms). Thus, the allegations are plainly incorrect.
17. The CPCB report of 28.03.2019 (Report dated 28.03.2019, Other observations @ para 19) already confirmed that the unit is not discharging anything into either of the rivers, and therefore this issue stood closed in 2019 itself.
Other effluent discharge related allegation in the 28.03.2019 inspection report unit found in compliance
18. At the time the matter was really initiated in 2019, the unit had separate STP systems (3 in number) for different parts of the premises and separate ETP systems (3 in number) for the different manufacturing units.
19. In the initial 28.03.2019 inspection report, an allegation was raised that there was increased CN content in only two of the ETP systems (Report dated 28.03.2019, Recommendations/Suggestions @ para 10).
20. However, this was a clear sampling error since the unit did not use CN at all. The Respondent No. 1 was proven correct subsequently, inasmuch as the joint inspection team has confirmed in its subsequent inspection report of 16.10.2019 (Joint Inspection report dated 16.10.2019, section 9.0 @ point no. 10) that the unit was complying in this respect since the CN value was well below the accepted norms. Effluent discharge related allegations in the 16.10.2019 inspection report- unit found in compliance
21. The joint inspection report of 16.10.2019 also alleged that there was a minor leakage in the ETP system and had raised 142 the suspicion (without definitely establishing the same) that the Respondent No. 1 may be discharging effluent into a nearby pond. For this alleged violation of not complying with the ZLD norms concerning effluent discharge, environmental compensation was also recommended.
22. While the Respondent No. 1 strongly opposed this finding as being factually erroneous, inter alia, in its letters dated 02.12.2019, 17.06.2020, 21.07.2020, 16.10.2020 and 05.11.2020 to the UPPCB/CPCB, since no response was forthcoming and in the interest of continuing its business, the compensation also was deposited under protest, the Respondent No. 1 having reserved its right to challenge the same in accordance with law.
23. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 1 spent more than Rs 5 Crores over time (Additional affidavit dated 30.11.2020, @Para 12) and since 2020, completely overhauled its STP and ETP systems such that the Respondent No. 1 created a state-of-the-art common-STP system as well as a common-ETP system (with a pre-ETP system), along with UF/RO/MEE/ATFD system. This replaced the multiple STP/ETP systems prevalent in the premises in the past.
24. As later confirmed in the joint inspection reports of 10.12.2020 as well as 30.07.2021, the common-STP system treats the water from the toilets/washrooms from the various manufacturing divisions as well as the water from the residential units (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 9.5 @Para 1; Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Section 8.4 @Para
1). Similarly, the common-ETP system treats the industrial effluent from the various manufacturing divisions (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 9.2 @Para 1; Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Section 8.3@Para 1). The different parts of the common STP/ETP systems, configurations and photographs have been clearly enlisted in the aforesaid joint inspection reports of 10.12.2020 and 30.07.2021.
25. The joint inspection reports of 10.12.2020 as well as 30.7.2021, establish beyond doubt that the treated output water from the common-ETP and a common-STP systems are well within the prescribed norms (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Table 21,22 and 24; Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Table 29 and 31)
26. The subsequent joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 further establishes beyond doubt that the Respondent No. 1 is not discharging any industrial effluent at all, whether into the nearby pond or into the groundwater (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Table 6 & Section 10 -- Water Audit, Section 13.1). This was because the water was being recycled for reuse within the premises.
143
27. Accordingly, the original alleged non-compliance qua industrial effluent discharge in the 16.10.2019 report, have been fully addressed going by the subsequent joint inspection reports, and these issues stand closed. Allegations pertaining to the Hazardous Waste Disposal in the 16.10.2019 inspection report - unit found in compliance.
28. Separately, the joint inspection report of 16.10.2019 had also alleged that there was violation of the Hazardous Waste Management Rules, solely on the basis that the quantum of hazardous waste found on the premises was higher than normal (Joint Inspection Report dated 16.10.2019, Section 12.3). While the Respondent No. 1 strongly opposed this finding is being illogical and incorrect, inter alia, in its letters dated 17.06.2020, 21.07.2020 and 05.11.2020 to the UPPCB/CPCB, since no response was forthcoming and in the interest of continuing its business, the compensation also was deposited under protest, the Respondent No. 1 having reserved its right to challenge the same in accordance with law.
29. Subsequently, the latest joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 has confirmed that the unit is in full compliance with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Section 9).
30. Accordingly, the original alleged non-compliance qua hazardous waste in the 16.10.2019 report, has been fully addressed going by the subsequent joint inspection report of 30.07.2021, and this issue also stands closed.
New allegations raised in the 10.12.2020 inspection report
31. While all the original allegations stood fully addressed, the joint inspection report of 10.12.2020 raised certain new issues for the 1st time:
Carry out a water audit for a detailed study of the total actual water consumption and recycling of treated water, since they appear to be a slight mismatch in the water consumption (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 15 @ Para 2-3) Installation of flowmeters at every input/output point (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 15 @ Para 4-6) higher CN content in the common-ETP outlet (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 15 @Para 8), without fully appreciating that this common-ETP outlet water is thereafter treated by the UF/RO/MEE/ATFD system (Joint Inspection Report dated 10.12.2020, Section 9.2, @Para 4) and the final output water does not have any CN.144
32. The issues were directly addressed the Respondent No. 1's reply filed with the Hon'ble NGT on 03.02.2021. In particular, among others, the unit submitted that CN was not used in its process and that the 16.10.2019 Report had already found that CN content was within norms. The detailed reply is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity, particularly in the light of the fact that all the 3 points are complied with as per the subsequent inspection report of 30.07.2021.
33. In particular, the subsequent inspection report of 30.07.2021 establishes that-
As per the water audit conducted by the joint inspection team, there is complete balance of the consumption of water within the premises. No fresh water was being used for industrial activity. Instead, the recycled water from the STP/ETP is a utilized in the manufacturing sections as well as a toilet flushing et cetera (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Table 1, @Point 2-3).
The water audit conducted by the joint inspection team, is further confirmed by the independent water audits carried out by NEERI (dated 14.04.2021) (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Annexure 11) as well as by the CII (dated March 2021) (Exhibit 2 of Reply to Compliance Report dated 31.07.2021). Flowmeters have been installed at every input/output point, totaling 87 in number (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Table 1 @ Point 5, Annexure 1) The treated output water from the common-ETP and the common-STP system do not contain any CN (Joint Inspection Report dated 30.07.2021, Table 29, Table 31, and Table 1 @Point 8;).
34. Accordingly, the new alleged non-compliances in the 10.12.2020 report, stand fully complied with as per later joint inspection report of 30.7.2021 and thus, these issues stand closed as well.
30.07.2021 inspection report confirms full compliance with all prior recommendations/suggestions
35. In the latest joint inspection report of 30.07.2021, the joint inspection team has fully confirmed that all the alleged non- compliances mentioned in the earlier report dated 10.12.2020, were fully addressed.
36. The conclusions of the joint inspection report are given in section 13 of the said report. The Joint Inspection Report demonstrates the following:
No CN is being discharged by the Respondent No. 1 into the environment.
The unit has not polluted the groundwater with any discharge or by any illegal sludge disposal.
The inspection team did not find any effluent discharge in violation of law. Instead, it has been concluded that the 145 output from the common-STP is being recycled into industrial process, boiler, toilet flushing and horticulture. Similarly, the output from the common-ETP is being recycled into industrial process and utility (air scrubber, air washer, cooling towers etc.) within the plant. The output the treated water from the STP/ETP systems are well within the specified norms.
No groundwater is being used for industrial purpose whatsoever and that only treated water from STP and ETP was being used for industrial process.
The joint inspection has found that the unit is drawing significantly less amount of groundwater (113 KLD) than it is permitted to do so by law (250 KLD).
The inspection team did not find any illegal disposal of hazardous waste or violation of any provision of the Hazardous Waste Management Rules.
All environmental compensation demanded as per prior order/reports have been paid and there are no dues in this respect.
all prior recommendations from the earlier joint committee inspection report dated 10.12.2020 & 16.10.2019, and all Hon'ble NGT orders including the order dated 04.02.2021 are complied with.
37. The latest inspection report of 30.07.2021 demonstrates beyond doubt that all prior violations as alleged/indicated by the inspection team in the prior instances now stand fully complied with. In particular, the three directions given by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 04.02.2021, were verified by the joint inspection team and it was found beyond doubt that the unit is in compliance with reference to the same:
No. Direction from the Hon'ble Respondent No. 1's reply Tribunal in order dated 4.02.2021 1 Let the joint Committee, alongwith (i) Joint inspection team has a representative from IIT Roorkee, confirmed in section 6.5 and Table 6 further verify the compliance status of the report that the unit has not including the fact that no waste contaminated any ground water;
water injection in the ground water is taking place so that the ground (ii) Joint inspection team has water is not contaminated by confirmed in Table 31 of the report injection of any waste water, in that the water from the STP outlet is view of the fact that cyanide and well within accepted parameters; other heavy metal have been found in the samples (iii) Joint inspection team has confirmed in Table 29 of the report that the water from the ETP outlet is well within accepted parameters;
2 Water audit may be got conducted Joint inspection team has
by the CPCB. conducted a detailed water audit
and confirmed in section 10 of
the report that the unit is in
compliance with law, and that the
findings are consistent with a NEERI
report dated 14.04.2021
146
3 Assessment of compensation may Joint inspection team has confirmed
be looked into jointly by CPCB and in section 12 of the report that all the State PCB. environmental compensation demanded as per prior order/reports have been paid and there are no dues in this respect.
New allegations raised in the 30.07.2021 inspection report
38. However, for the first time ever, the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 raised new allegations pertaining to (i) unexplained CN and other heavy metals in the STP inlet,
(ii) capability of the STP to treat/remove CN and other heavy metals. However, it is submitted that these allegations do not raise any concerns as a matter of law and/or fact, for the following reasons:
(i) As a matter of law, the law does not prescribe any parameters for the input water into the STP. The very same joint inspection report confirms in table 31 that the water from the STP outlet does not contain any pollutants beyond the specified norms as extracted in Exhibit 1 (colly) to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. Thus, there is no environmental harm or violation of law.
(ii) Even otherwise, admittedly, the joint inspection team has only stated that the STP inlet parameters "indicates" the mixing of industrial effluent, has stated that the compliance of the STP outlet is "doubtful" and/or has only indicated the "possibility" of dilution at the STP outlet with freshwater. At best, these are ambiguous and inconclusive inferences, and are not backed by any positive finding. In particular, the joint inspection report does not positively find any piping system or injection systems to redirect industrial effluent into the STP. Nor has the joint inspection report found any mismatch/imbalance in the quantity during the water audit (section 10 of the report) to suggest that some freshwater is being used to dilute the STP outlet.
Therefore, at best, the inferences are entirely conjectural in nature and mere speculation, and cannot be the basis for any final conclusions.
(iii) The sampling and the analysis are not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed, inter alia, under Section 21-22 of the Water Act.
(iv) As a matter of fact, there is a credible and strong suspicion that there was a sampling error/contamination qua the STP inlet sample. This is because, (a) chemical oxygen demand or COD and biological oxygen demand or BOD cannot have been at such high range (5158 ppm and 1720 ppm) where the total dissolved salts (TDS) is only 676 ppm; high COD/BOD must necessarily also have very high TDS, which is not the case here, (b) all prior reports of the same joint inspection team (on 16.10.2019 and 10.12.2020) do 147 not report CN at all or such high contamination, (b) a contemporaneous independent report from NEERI dated 14.04.2021 (at table 4.3) contradicts the latest joint inspection report in terms of STP inlet characteristics. Said NEERI report is Annexure-11 to the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021, and was also filed with the UPPCB in the Respondent No. 1's letter dated 05.04.2021, which is enclosed as Exhibit 2 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. The relevant comparison table is extracted below for convenience:
S. Para- COMMON COMMON STP STP INLET WATER AS PER STP INLET No meters STP INLET INLET WATER 29.08.2019 JOINT WATE R AS PER WATER AS AS PER INSPECTION REPORT 16.04.2021 PER 10.12.2020 (NB: 1 UNIT MOVED TO NEERI REPORT 30.07.2021 JOINT COMMON- STP AFTER TI-
JOINT INSPECTION ITS 2019 INSPICTION)
INSPECTION REPORT
REPORT
GLASS METAL RESIDENTI
DIVISION DIVISI ON AL STP
STP STP INLET
INLET INLET
1. pH 6.9 7.9 2.58 7.36 7.27 7.5
2. TSS 5464 489 135 148 48 790
3. TDS 676 (not (not (not (not 1465
reported) reported) reported) reported)
4. COD 5158 676 475 356 121 736
5. BOD 1720 291 169 134 49 370
6. Chloride 150 ').5-) 425 643 98 207
7. PO:4-P 6.13 10.15 0.12 0.89 1.90 4.4
8. NO3INI 20.6 4.4 527 19 1.4 ..
9. Color 94 147 98 96 25 (not reported)
10. Sulphate 31 100 413 63 33 55
11. NH3-N 91 151 59 188 14 56
12. Oil & - - (not (not (not (not reported)
Grease reported) reported) reported)
13. Cyanide 3.19 (not (not (not (not BDL
reported) reported) reported) reported)
14. As 0.09 0.04 BDL 0.03 0.01 (not reported)
15 Cd RD]. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
16 Co 0.05 0.02 0.09 BDL BDL 0.034
17 Cr 1.45 0.16 1.02 BDL BDL 16
18 Cu 7.18 1.55 14.15 0.04 0.06 4.6
19 Fe 75.60 4.74 19.37 0.54 1.41 31
20 Mn 3.0 0.3 1.05 0.11 0.33 1.13
21 Ni 10.42 5.55 60.10 0.03 0.13 6.3
22 Pl 3.44 0.07 0.08 BDL BDL 0.363
23 SI) 0.03 BDL BDL BDL BDL 8.9
24 Se BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL (not reported)
25 V BDL 0.11 BDL BDL BDL (not reported)
26 Zn 17.35 3.5 93.08 0.02 0.43 8.9
24 MLSS - (not (not (not (not reported)
reported) reported) reported)
28 MLVSS - - (not (not (not (not reported)
reported) reported) reported)
29. Total 28 x 10n 9.2x 10° <1.8 33x 106 92x 106 18 x 108
Coliform
30. Faecal 44 x 1011 3.5 x 10° <1.8 17x 106 48x 105 (not reported)
Coliform
(v) The veracity of latest finding/inferences qua STP inlet are
further cast into doubt because there is no
corresponding finding that the unit is in fact using 148 CN in any process, or how such CN can be produced as a by-product in the industrial process. The unit has not used CN in its process whether directly or indirectly, and all the raw material suppliers of the Respondent No. I have also confirmed the same qua their product. And the joint inspection team has verified the industrial process used at the site at least three times, without actually ever observing any CN usage in the process. The joint inspection report also does not specify how the testing was done, i.e. the testing protocol followed to determine the presence of CN. It is settled law that expert reports/opinions are not always conclusive in nature, especially in the present case where the inferences have not been tested in a trial and credible questions are being raised.
(vi) Thus, there seems to be a clear sampling error/contamination of the sample.
(vii) It is submitted that some small amount of heavy metals (other than CN) is expected in the STP inlet because the STP also treats water from the washrooms of the manufacturing units (including metal buffing section) as confirmed by the joint inspection report at paragraph (1) of section 8.4 of 30.07.2021 report. Such water from the toilets/washrooms of the manufacturing/industrial divisions, will contain residues from the staff's shoes, clothing, water from washing of their PPE, washroom floor cleaning water etc., which may contain metals/contaminants/pollutants from the industrial process. Therefore, the presence of some amount of heavy metals (other than CN) in the STP inlet, as seen in the NEERI Report dated 14.04.2021 as well as the earlier joint inspection reports of 16.10.2019 and 10.12.2020, is not unreasonable or uncommon.
(viii) Out of abundant caution, a further testing of the STP inlet water was undertaken by two NABL accredited independent labs, one private (Shree Ram Testing Laboratories) and the other government (RTC Laboratory, MHSC-Department of Textiles), and both reports confirm there is no CN, and COD/BOD or other heavy metals are not detected at such high values. This is annexed as Exhibit 3 (colly) to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. The values of COD/BOD or other heavy metals are all within the expected range, given the explanation (vi) above.
39. It is further submitted that the inferences of alleged dilution of STP outlet and/or mixing of industrial effluent into the STP inlet is erroneous and self-contradictory for the following reasons:
(i) The joint inspection team was present in the unit and observed the STP in operation and collected samples during live operation of the STP. They did not observe or record any dilution of freshwater or any piping systems to divert 149 industrial effluents. Therefore, for the joint inspection team to allege dilution or mixing of industrial effluents is nothing but conjecture.
(ii) The STP outlet has 2% less water than the STP inlet as per table 37 of the report, and the water audit at section 10 of the report and in particular, the water chart at internal page 64 of the report, established beyond doubt the closed loop of the water cycle within the unit. If freshwater/groundwater was being used for diluting wastewater, there would been an unexplained mismatch/imbalance in the quantity in the water audit, which is not the case here. There was also no such unexplained mismatch/imbalance in the quantity in the water audit conducted by NEERI as well as the CII, both of which were presented to the UPPCB vide letter dated 05.04.2021 and annexed as part of Exhibit 2 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. Thus, dilution at any stage of the process is completely ruled out.
(iii) The alleged characteristics of the STP inlet showing very high contamination/pollution (table 31) seems to be worse than the untreated industrial effluent from the unit (tables 26/27 and table 29), i.e. pH, TSS, COD, CN, As, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, as seen in the extract below:
S. Parameters COMMON STP INLET PRE-ETP-1 INLET COMMON-ETP No. WATER AS PER 30.07.2021 WATER AS PER INLET WATER AS JOINT INSPECTION 30.07.2021 JOINT PER 30.07.2021 REPORT INSPECTION JOINT INSPECTION (TABLE 31) REPORT REPORT (TABLES 26/27) (TABLE 29) 1 pH 6.9 5.9 8.9 2. TSS 5464 904 123
3. TDS 676 1808 2380 4. COD 5158 4090 136 5 BOD 1720 2110 53 6 Chloride 150 467 362 7 PO4-P 6.13 6.0 0.63
8. NO3_N 20.6 22.7 10.8 9. Color 94 60 14 10. Sulphate 31 50 336 11 NH3-N 91 (not reported) (not reported)
12. Oil & Grease - (not reported) (not reported)
13. Cyanide 3.19 0.23 BIM,
14. As 0.09 BDL BIN 15 Cd BDL BDL BD1
16. Co 0.05 0.03 0.01
17. Cr 1.45 0.63 0.22
18. Cu 7.18 3.02 0.63
19. Fe 75.60 97.97 5.29
20. Mn 3.0 1.5 0.32
21. Ni 10.42 34.0 7.98
22. Pb 3.44 0.24 0.02
23. SU 0.03 BDI. BDI.
24. Se BDL BDL 13DI.
25. V BDL BDL BD1.
26. Zn 17.35 73.2 7.26
27. MLSS - -
28. MLVSS - -
29. Total Coliform 28 x 10" -
Faecal
30. 44 x 10" -
Coliform 150 If industrial effluent from the unit was being mixed with the STP inlet as alleged, the water parameters of such mixed water could not be worse than the industrial effluent. Thus, the inference of industrial effluent mixing, is not only speculative but also erroneous and specious.
(iv) As per table 37 of this report, the average quantum of water in the STP inlet (4272 KL/month) is consistent with the STP inlet volume reported in Table 28 of the earlier report of 10.12.2020 (4028 KL/month). In said earlier report, the STP inlet was not contaminated as alleged this time. If industrial effluent was being mixed into the STP inlet as alleged, the STP inlet volume must have tremendously increased so as to have this high concentration of pollutants, which is not the case. Further, such mixing would have also led to tremendous increase in the TDS because the untreated industrial effluent has three times more TDS value (see table 29 of the report), which is also not seen in this case.
40. It is further submitted that the joint inspection team's inference that the compliance of the STP is "doubtful" because STP does not have heavy metal removal unit, is not just conjecture, but also plainly incorrect and self-contradictory. The report itself notes at para (3) of section 8.4 that the STP has a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) unit. It is an well-established and documented that SBRs with biological aerobic treatment can remove heavy metals with very high efficiency, which is precisely the situation in this case. Reference may be had to Exhibit 4 (colly) to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. Therefore, there is no factual basis to cast doubt on the functioning/capability of the STP. The very same STP was in operation during the previous inspection of 10.12.2020 and that report concludes without any doubt that the STP was functioning/operational without any problem.
41. Although the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 states that there was a significant concentration of CN found in the common STP inlet and some detectable concentration in the Pre-ETP-1 inlet (0.23 mg/l) & Pre-ETP-1 outlet, it is submitted that this finding is ex facie erroneous, anomalous and in any event, does no result in any violation of law, for the following reasons:
(i) The law does not prescribe any parameters for the input water into the STP or the ETP or for the water in the intermediate stages. What matters is only the final treated water. The very same joint inspection report confirms in table 31 that the water from the STP outlet does not contain any CN, i.e. below detectable level (BDL). Similarly, the report acknowledges that the water from the pre-ETP-1 is further treated in the common-ETP system (para (3) of section 8.3 of the Report) and the treated output water from the common-
ETP system (table 29) shows that the water if within 151 the prescribed norms. Thus, there is no environmental harm or violation of law.
(ii) The sampling and the analysis are not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed, inter alia, under Section 21-22 of the Water Act.
(iii) The joint inspection report also does not specify how the testing was done, i.e., the testing protocol followed to determine the various parameters.
(iv) No CN was reported in the STP inlets or in the ETP inlets as per the joint inspection teams' own reports from 10.12.2020 and 16.10.2019.
(v) No CN was reported in the ETP inlet in the NEERI report dated 14.04.2021 (at table 4.2) or in the test reports of IIT Roorkee dated 19.03.2021, both of which provided to the UPPCB vide letter dated 05.04.2021. A copy of the letter dated 05.04.2021 is enclosed as Exhibit 2 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021.
(vi) No CN was reported in the STP inlet in the aforesaid NEERI report of 14.04.2021 (at table 4.3), which is part of Exhibit 2 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021.
(vii) Thus, it is evident that there is a clear sampling error/contamination of the samples from STP inlet, Pre- ETP-1 inlet & Pre-ETP-1 outlet. It is noteworthy that the representative from ITT Roorkee was not present when the samples were drawn by the joint inspection team.
(viii) Out of abundant caution, further testing of the STP inlet water, Pre-ETP-1 inlet & Pre-ETP-1 outlet (and all the other inlets/outlets) was undertaken by two NABL accredited independent labs, one private (Shree Ram Testing Laboratories) and the other government (RTC Laboratory, MHSC-Department of Textiles), and both reports confirm there is no CN. These have been annexed as Exhibit 3 (colly) to the Reply dated 10.08.2021.
42. If is further submitted that although section 13.1 of the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 reproduces the alleged comments from the IIT-Roorkee expert on the presence of CN as per the joint committee test report, this is contradicted by a test reports of IIT-Roorkee itself, which were placed before the UPPCB vide letter dated 05.04.2021 (already placed on record as Exhibit 2 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021), which shows no CN. These alleged comments in section 13.1 of the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021, in fact, also acknowledge that the final treated water does not contain any CN. It is also noteworthy that the representative from IIT Roorkee was not present when the samples were drawn by the joint inspection team.
43. That said latest inspection report also recommends that the unit start maintaining a separate logbook for STP sludge different from the ETP sludge. The unit has, w.e.f. from 15.07.2021, i.e., one day after the joint inspection team raised this query, started maintaining a separate logbook for the ETP sludge and the STP sludge. A sample of such separate logbooks are enclosed 152 as Exhibit 6 (colly) to the Reply dated 10.08.2021. It is further submitted that not having a separate logbook in the past does not raise any concern as a matter of law and fact, for the following reasons:
(i) That there is no requirement in law to maintain logbooks separately for the STP sludge and ETP sludge generated from within the very same premises/unit.
(ii) Admittedly, all the sludge is stored for disposal at only one location within the premises and the logbook maintained by the unit records the sludge in that location on a daily-basis. This has been confirmed by the inspection unit as well. The sludge is together disposed of in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules at the specified Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facility (TSDF) of M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., Kanpur, as per law. This has been confirmed in section 9 of the joint inspection report.
Said TSDF has confirmed that the unit's sludge comprises both STP and ETP sludge, this confirmation being enclosed as Exhibit 5 to the Reply dated 10.08.2021.
(iii) There is no finding in the report that the STP sludge is being disposed of illegally or been dumped in violation of the law. In fact, it is categorically concluded in section 9 of the report that the unit complies with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules fully. There is no finding of non-violation.
44. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted that the latest inspection report does not demonstrate any violation of the law or environmental norms. The limited adverse remarks in section 13.1 of the joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 are not credible and there exists a strong basis that there has been a sampling error and/or contamination of the samples. Barring these limited adverse remarks, the report as a whole establish clearly that the treated output water is well within norms and there is no illegal discharge.
45. It is humbly submitted that the unit has done everything possible to ensure compliance and in fact, has complied with requirements mentioned in the joint inspection reports, which do not even form part of the law or any of the statutory guidelines. It is submitted that almost every allegation of non-compliance against the unit stands contradicted in a subsequent report. For instance, it was alleged in the report of 10.12.2020 that there was a mismatch in the water audit, inferring the potential diversion of groundwater for industrial use. Yet, in the latest report of 30.07.2021, the joint inspection has accepted that the water audit is perfectly correct and there was no mismatch in quantum and that no industrial groundwater is being used for industrial purpose. Similarly, none of reports of 28.03.2019, 16.10.2019, 10.12.2020 or any of the intervening status update 153 reports raised any issue about the STP. Yet, it is humbly submitted, unfounded issues were raised about the STP for the very first time after three inspections on 30.07.2021. The ex facie absurdity of the new allegations are apparent from the fact that alleged non-compliances are all pertain to the STP inlet water whereas what matters, in law and in fact, is whether the treated output water is within norms.
46. For the reasons already demonstrated above, the findings qua the STP inlet sample results are anomalous and inherently contradictory and that instead, there is strong/credible basis to conclude that there was some sampling error or contamination in the samples drawn. In particular, the independent reports from NEERI and IIT Roorkee directly contradict the test results of the CPCB. It is submitted that any adverse inferences based on inlet parameters alone, are speculative and conjecture and ought to be rejected.
47. Further, it is humbly reiterated that the unit has started complying with the direction to keep a separate logbook for the STP sludge and that in any event, this was only a technical requirement inasmuch as there is no finding of illegal STP sludge disposal. On the contrary, the TSDF facility had confirmed that the sludge from the unit comprised both ETP and STP sludge, which disposal is taking place in accordance with law.
48. It is reiterated that the Respondent No. 1 company has been operating for more than 25 years and employs more than 7000 persons at its unit. The unit has always been complying with all the prescribed norms and standards."
69. Initially, the matter was heard on 03.08.2021 and order was reserved but while draft order was being prepared it was found that the submissions of PP require consideration of guidelines dated 24.09.2020 issued by CGWA and status and validity of NOC issued to PP by UPGWD under UPGWMR Act, 2019. Since, validity of guidelines dated 24.09.2020 was already under consideration in some other matters, we found it necessary and appropriate to have further hearing of this matter along with those pending matters so that no party may be prejudiced and an effective hearing may be afforded to all. Consequently, OA was directed to be listed along with OA No. 69/2020, Sushil Bhatt v. Moon Beverages Limited & Others vide order dated 07.09.2021.
154 IA No. 184/2021
70. During pendency, PP filed above IA requesting that the present OA be detached from other connected OA 69/2020, Sushil Bhatt v. Moon Beverages Limited & Others and dispose of since PP has made compliance of all the requirements. In the context of alleged compliance, PP has stated in para 2 of the IA that it has installed following devices to control environmental pollution:
"i. Installation of Centralized STP Plant in Place of Divisional STP Plant.
ii. Installation of a Primary Treatment Plant for EPL & Paint Booth water Separate Treatment.
iii. Instead of Separate Divisional Plant we have Installed a Common ETP Plant along with MBBR System and filtration system like (MGF, ACF, HMR & Softner) iv. Installed a 3 Stage R.O's (Reverse Osmosis System) with 2- U.F. System with 92% - 95% Recovery of recycling water.
v. MEE (Multi Effect Evaporation) with ATFD (Agitated Thin Film Evaporator) System installed for completion of (Zero Liquid Discharge) ZLD System.
vi. Installation of Analyzer for Online Monitoring System of Recycle water Parameter.
vii. Set-up of an Internal Environment Testing Laboratory for Periodic analysis system.
viii. Installed 87 Electro-magnetic Meter in the Complete ZLD System.
ix. A system to monitor the treated water quality from the water treatment plants is available wherein water is analysed and data is shared online. This online monitoring system is already installed and working in both STP and ETP in the X. industry of Respondent No.1. An application for data recording on the CPCB server has been submitted Permission has been granted for the online data transfer from the Common STP and the same is being recorded on the CPCB server.
x. Further, online monitoring system is working on the common ETP and the data will start recording on the server once the permission is granted from the CPCB The online monitoring System analysis treated output water quality of the following parameters TSS, Ph, BOD COD. Data is analysed And recorded on the CPCB server every 15 minutes."155
71. It is further said by PP that neither it is engaged in an illegal abstraction of groundwater nor groundwater is contaminated and further PP has already paid environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,16,39,727/- and for remaining, it had requested for waiver which is pending before UPPCB, therefore, there is no non-compliance and matter should be disposed of in view of above contents. Supplementary written submissions by respondent 1:
72. Respondent no. 1 has filed his supplementary written submissions, taking defence as under:
"9. In view of the above considerations and observations of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is most humbly submitted that:-
(A)THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 INDUSTRY IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY ILLEGAL EXTRACTION OF GROUND WATER.
(i) Respondent industry has been awarded a NOC by UPGWD, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh via Certificate no.
NOC019504 u/s 10(1) UP Ground water management and regulation Act 2019 which is valid from 21.12.2018 to 7.4.2026. As per the NOC the respondent industry is allowed to abstract 250KLD water from (permitted 3 borewells) for industrial purpose. [page 1386]
(ii) The respondent industry has just two active borewells i.e., borewell no. 3 located at residential colony of the workers and employees and borewell no. 4 located near glass division of the industry. The respondent meets its daily fresh water requirement for drinking and domestic use need from these two borewells only. [page 1274]
(iii) The respondent industry does not use the fresh water for industrial use. Fresh water is only used for drinking purposes and utilities in the residential colonies of the employees and for drinking purposes in industrial premises.
(iv) For the industrial purposes, the respondent industry is using treated waste recycled water from the industrial divisions. Treated recycled STP and ETP water is used for industrial activities, toilet flushing, and green belt for horticulture. [page 1329]
(v) Average fresh water consumption per day is 113.54 KLD which is within the permitted ground water abstraction limit of 250 KLD in the NOC. [page 1275] 156
(vi) The joint committed in its report dated 30.07.2021 has concluded in their water audit that the respondent no.1 industry is nowhere using fresh water in industrial activities. The report dated 30.07.2021 at Pg. 112 (internal pg. 81) records its conclusion as follows: -
"The unit is recycling the treated sewage & treated trade effluent (from common-STP & common-STP) for industrial purpose and nowhere it was found using fresh water in industrial activities. Fresh water is only being used for drinking purpose in various manufacturing divisions."
(B)THE GROUNDWATER IS NOT CONTAMINATED AND THE QUALITY IS AS PER STANDARD NORMS.
(i) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 unit is situated approximately 20kms away from the Ram Ganga River, as against the allegation levelled in the instant original application before the Hon'ble Tribunal of dumping of sewage into the river. The same has also been established by the Joint Committee Report dated 28.03.2019 as prepared in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 08.03.2019. [page 28-35]
(ii) Analysis results of groundwater samples collected from Borewell no. 3 and 4 are found complying with the permissible limit of drinking water quality standards with respect to all parameters as per Bureau of Indian Standards. [page 1280]
(iii) This shows that there is no pollution in the groundwater borewells in the area.
(iv) The wastewater generated by the industry does not cause any pollution of the ground water as -
(a) the whole waste water generated is treated by Effluent Treatment plants (ETP) and Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) and is recycled for use in the industrial process, toilet flushing and horticulture and is not discharged into any river/drain/pond. [page 1329]
(b) the analysis of ETP and STP outlet water which is used for aforementioned purposes shows that it is free from hazardous substances.
(c) the sludge from ETP and STP is being disposed of in accordance with the waste management rules and law at the TSDF facility of M/s Bharat Oil and Waste Management Ltd Kanpur.
(C) THERE IS NO PRESENCE OF CYANIDE IN INLETS/OUTLETS OF THE STP/ETP INSTALLED IN THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 COMPANY The joint inspection report of 30.07.2021 raised concerns regarding presence of cyanide in STP inlet. It is submitted that these allegations do not raise any concerns as a matter of law and/or fact, for the following reasons:
157
(i) As a matter of law, the law does not prescribe any parameters for the input water into the STP. The very same joint inspection report confirms in Table 31 that the water from the STP outlet does not contain any pollutants beyond the specified norms.
(ii) Even otherwise, admittedly, the joint inspection team has only stated that the STP inlet parameters "indicates" the mixing of industrial effluent, has stated that the compliance of the STP outlet is "doubtful" and/or has only indicated the "possibility"
of dilution at the STP outlet with freshwater. At best, these are ambiguous and inconclusive inferences, and are not backed by any positive finding. In particular, the joint inspection report does not positively find any piping system or injection systems to redirect industrial effluent into the STP. Nor has the joint inspection report found any mismatch/imbalance in the quantity during the water audit (section 10 of the report) to suggest that some freshwater is being used to dilute the STP outlet. Therefore, at best, the inferences are entirely conjectural in nature and mere speculation, and cannot be the basis for any final conclusions.
(iii) The presence of cyanide in the STP inlet can be attributed to cyanide concentration in human urine which is a part of the sewage effluents. It can also be attributed to the cyanide deposits on the walls of the old pipelines. It may be noted that though the cyanide presence is seen in the inlet, but the same is not observed in the STP outlet.
(iv) Further, vide sampling and testing conducted by Shri Ram Testing Laboratory on 02.09.2021 and the tests conducted by Central Laboratory of the UPPCB, the presence of CN has been found to be 'below detectable level' in both Inlet and Outlet of STP/ETP installed in the Respondent No.1 company premises. [page 1834-1850] Hence, conclusively, there is no presence of CN or its possibility of injection into the ground water in the surrounding area of the Respondent No. 1 company premises.
(D) THE PRESENT MATTER IS NOT RELATABLE TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN OA NO. 69/2020 - SUSHIL BHATT VS MOON BEVERAGES
(i) As the order dated 07.09.2021 has tagged the present matter with OA No. 69/2020, Sushil Bhatt v. Moon Beverages Limited & Others, it is submitted that Moon Beverages Ltd. has not presently obtained the NOC from UPGWD and the application remains pending. While the NOC obtained by Moon Beverages has been issued by CGWA, under the revised rules vide notification of the Central Govt., Ministry of Jal Shakti dated 24.09.2020.
(ii) The same is in challenge before the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 218/20 in the matter of Devi Das khatri vs. Union of India, wherein notice was issued vide order dated 09.10.2020. 158
(iii) It is further submitted that OA No. 218/2020 (Devi Das Khatri) was tagged with OA No. 69/2020 (Moon Beverages) vide order dated 31.08.2021, considering the fact that NOC obtained by Moon Beverages falls under the purview of the Revised rules of CGWA vide notification of the Central Govt., Ministry of Jal Shakti dated 24.09.2020; and hence the matter was tagged for similar consideration.
(iv) However, in the present case (OA No. 220/2019), M/s CL Gupta Exports has obtained the NOC from UPGWD, provisions of which are not under challenge before the Hon'ble Tribunal or any other court of law.
10. The respondent no. 1 company has undertaken several steps and installed multiple systems and devices to reduce environmental pollution and comply with the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the recommendations of all Joint Inspection Reports. [page 1794-1828] i. Installation of Centralized STP Plant in Place of Divisional STP Plant.
ii. Installation of a Primary Treatment Plant for EPL & Paint Booth water Separate Treatment.
iii. Instead of Separate Divisional Plant, a Common ETP Plant along with MBBR System and filtration system like (MGF, ACF, HMR & Softener) has been installed.
iv. Installed a 3 Stage R. O's (Reverse Osmosis System) with 2- U.F System with 92 % - 95% Recovery of recycling water. v. MEE (Multi Effect Evaporation) with ATFD (Agitated Thin Film Evaporator) System installed for completion of (Zero Liquid Discharge) ZLD System.
vi. Installation of Analyzer for Online Monitoring System of Recycle water Parameter.
vii. Set-up of an Internal Environment Testing Laboratory for Periodic analysis system.
viii. Installed 87 Electro-magnetic Flow Meter in the Complete ZLD System.
ix. A system to monitor the treated water quality from the water treatment plants is available wherein water is analysed and data is shared online. This online monitoring system is already installed and working in both STP and ETP in the industry of Respondent No.1. An application for data recording on the CPCB server has been submitted. Permission has been granted for the online data transfer from the Common STP and the same is being recorded on the CPCB server.
x. Further, online monitoring system is working on the common ETP and the data will start recording on the server once the permission is granted from the CPCB The online monitoring System analysis treated output water quality of the following 159 parameters - TSS, Ph, BOD, COD. Data is analysed and recorded on the CPCB server every 15 minutes.
11. Hence, in light of the above submissions, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Tribunal that the present matter (O.A. No. 220/2019) be detagged from O.A. 69/2020 (Sushil Bhatt vs Moon Beverages) and the same be dismissed in light of all the compliances obeyed by the Respondent No.1 company."
ARGUMENTS
73. This application was filed in person and the allegations made in OA being serious, giving rise to substantial question relating to environment due to implementation of the enactments mentioned in Schedule to NGT Act, 2010, a factual report from a Committee constituted by Tribunal was sought. The report confirmed most of the allegations made in the application. Even subsequent reports show continued non-compliance on the part of PP.
74. In these facts and circumstances, learned Counsel appearing for Statutory Regulators pointed out that PP has violated environmental laws for which compensation was also determined from time to time; as per last report of Committee, still environmental norms, laws and the conditions of consent/NOC/clearance were/are being breached, hence PP is liable for stricter and stern action and not entitled for any leniency.
75. On the contrary, Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Umang Mehta, Advocate, appearing for PP stated that Committees have not examined matter properly, committed various factual and other irregularities and failed to consider that PP has substantially complied with all the requirements and recommendations made in various reports of Committees and in view of subsequent steps taken by PP, there is no further non-compliance, therefore, no further action would be justified against PP particularly when it has already paid substantial amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel also 160 referred to various objections/written submissions filed by PP and reiterated the same in support of the stand of PP. ISSUES FORMULATED
76. In the light of the above pleadings, documents and reports, as also rival submissions, following issues have arisen in this OA:
I. Whether PP was/is running its industrial establishment by violating environmental laws and norms causing water and air pollution?
II. Whether PP extracted groundwater for industrial purpose, if so, abstraction of groundwater by PP is valid or illegal?
III. Whether PP has complied with the conditions of consent/NOC/clearance issued by respective Statutory Regulators under various environmental laws?
IV. Whether UP Groundwater Department could have granted NOC, valid from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026 as stated in the Committee report dated 30.07.2021, particularly when even the enactment under which said NOC was granted by UP Groundwater Department, was not in existence?
V. Whether the Committees/Regulators were justified in computing compensation ignoring direction of Tribunal that compensation must take into consideration the capacity and turnover of the violating industry and must cover the element of punitive for infraction of environmental law, cost of damage to environment, cost of remediation, deterrent factor so that violation is not profiteering to violator etc.?
VI. Whether repeated violations on the part of PP need more deterrent and special amount of compensation?161
VII. What further order would be justified for preservation, protection and maintenance of environment?
VIII. Whether abstraction of groundwater after expiry of the validity of NOC dated 21.12.2016 on 20.12.2018, was illegal?
77. DISCUSSION ON MERITS: The issues noticed above basically relate to alleged pollution caused by PP i.e., respondent 1 while running its industrial unit comprising several sections i.e., metal, glass, wood, thermocol and marble.
78. Respondent 1, M/s. CL Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CLGEPL') claims to have been engaged in the business of export of handicraft items since 1955. The factory in question, commenced its operation in 2004 at the present premises after incorporation of Company, registered with Registrar of Companies, Delhi on 10.03.2004. Unit was established at Delhi-Moradabad NH 24 Highway about 140 KM from Delhi i.e., 18 kms Stone at Delhi Road, village Jiwai, Jyotibaphule Nagar Amroha. The factory land area is 50 Acres with covered area 2,80,000 sq. ft. It has in house electricity generation of 6 MW. It is engaged in manufacturing of products in brass, aluminum, copper, zinc alloy, stainless steel, mild steal, wrought iron, wood and glass. It extended its manufacturing activities for manufacturing of thermocol blocks. The manufacturing section of CLGEPL are divided in various sections, that is:
a) Wooden Art wares
b) Glass Art wares
c) Metal Art Wares
d) Thermocoal Art wares
e) Marble Art wares
f) Corrugated paper and cartons 162 Wooden Art Ware Manufacturing Division
79. In the aforesaid division consent to operate was granted under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1971 wherein manufacturing capacity of wooden art ware was allowed as 150 Ton per month. The various equipment and manufacturing process in the division comprised of the following :
i. Manufacturing process: log yard, sawing, Treatment process, Seasoning, Machining, Fabrication, Finishing, packing and Dispatch.
ii. There were 40 number of lacquer spray booths.
iii. One ETP with 25 KLD Capacity for treatment of effluent was installed at this division.
iv. ETP at wood division consisted of one collection cum equalization tank with dosing of chemicals (automatic dosing and mechanical mixing facility for phyico-chemical treatment of effluent), two numbers of aeration tank, one number settling tank, sand filter, activated carbon filter and HDPE final treated tank.
v. Acid poly-electrolyte, alum, sodium hypo chloride and caustic are used as dosing material in the treatment.
vi. After treatment the treated effluent are recycled in the wood division in spray booth.
vii. Flow meter was installed at ETP outlet and logbook for the months of July to September, 2019 was produced.
viii. Treated water tank (HDPE tank) was provided on the roof.
Glass Art Ware Manufacturing Division
80. As per consent to operate issued under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, the production capacity was 150 tons per month. Details of the processes and equipment in Glass Division are: 163
i. The manufacturing activities involved use of silica sand, soda ash, limestone and Feldspar as a raw material.
ii. Two number of glass melting furnaces (operating at 15000 C-
melting point of glass), two numbers of float bath (glass from the furnace gently flows over the refractory spout on to the mirror like surface of molten tin, starting at 11000 C and leaving the float bath as solid ribbon at 6000 C), two numbers of annealing furnace and four numbers of chakkas.
iii. The glass art ware process comprises raw material storage, batch mixing, lifting to furnace, charging through DOG house, melting furnace (14700 C - 15000 C), refining (at 12000 C), working bay (at 11800 C - 12200 C), blowing, annealing, inspection, wire cutting, grinding, etching and packing.
iv. There was a plating section in glass art ware division.
v. One number ETP with 100 KLD Capacity was installed in Glass art ware manufacturing section.
vi. ETP comprised of collection tank, pH correction tank, chemical dosing tank, flash mixer, clarifier, activated carbon filter, sand filter and ultra-filtration.
vii. One STP with capacity of 60 KLD for treatment of sewage generating from glass section was found in glass division. This STP consisted of collection tank, electrode tank, flash mixer, clarifier tank, intermediate storage tank, pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter as tertiary treatment units.
viii. One number of common borewell (borewell no. 4) was installed near entrance of Glass Division to meet fresh water requirements.
ix. One number of borewell (borewell no. 5) was found at the entrance of Glass Division which was closed with the help of 164 red cloth but connections were not dismantled and it was not seized.
Metal Art Ware Manufacturing Division
81. Consent to operate obtained by proponent under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981, provided manufacturing capacity of 150 ton per month in this division and processes and equipment are:
i. Metal Art Ware process comprises raw material storage, pre-
treatment (polishing, phosphating and shot blasting), finishing of goods (powder coating, painting and plating/electrophoresis coating), packing and dispatch.
ii. One ETP with 175 KLD capacity was installed.
iii. ETP consisted of collection tank, pH correction tank, flocculation tank, flash mixer, lamella type clarifier, final pH tank, dual media filter, carbon filter, micro cartridge filter, Ion-
exchange unit, ultra-filtration and treated water storage tank.
iv. Flow meter was installed at ETP outlet and log books of the month of July, August and September,2019 were shown.
v. One STP with 60 KLD from sewage generated from Metal division was provided.
vi. The STP consists of collection tank, electrode tank, flash mixer, clarifier tank, intermediate storage tank, pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter as tertiary treatment unit.
Thermocoal Block Manufacturing Division
82. The unit was issued consent under Section 21 & 22 of Air Act 1981 vide letter 27.09.2019 for the period of 28.08.2019 to 31.12.2019. The consented capacity of production of Thermocol Block was 65 tons per month. The manufacturing process comprise of raw material storage, pre- 165 foaming, making of blocks (using steam) and storage of blocks. The Thermocol division had one wood fired boiler of 4 TPH capacities. Residential Colony
83. The proponent industrial premises has a residential colony where about 400-500 people are residing. One STP with capacity of 120 KLD with treatment of domestic waste water generated from residential colony was provided. This STP was commissioned on 14th June, 2019. STP consisted of collection tank, electrode tank, flash mixer, clarifier tank, intermediate storage tank, pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter as tertiary treatment unit and two numbers of sludge drying beds.
84. Scrutiny in the matter was initiated by Tribunal on the complaint made by applicant which was entertained and first order was passed on 03.03.2019 requiring a factual report to be submitted by a joint Committee comprising CPCB and UPPCB. Pursuant thereto, first inspection of the premises was made on 28.03.2019 and report was submitted on 07.05.2019 and since thereafter, we had, in all 8 reports, brief whereof is under:
S. Date of Date of report Date of NGT Composition of N. inspection order when inspection team report was considered 1 28.03.2019 07.05.2019 29.08.2019 Dr. Prashant Singh, Scientist 'D', CPCB;
Mr. JP Maurya, RO, Bijnore, UPPCB; Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, AEE, RO, Bijnore, UPPCB; Mr. SK Traphati, SA and Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, JRF, CPCB 2 01.06.2019 16.07.2019 29.08.2019 Mr. SK Tripathi, Scientist Assistant and Mr. AK Sharma, AEE, UPPCB 3 16.10.2019 03.12.2019 04.12.2019 Mr. MK Biswas, Scientist 'D',CPCB; Mr. 166 JP Maurya, RO, Bijnor, UPPCB; Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, AEE, Bijnor, UPPCB; Mr. TK Pant, Scientist D, CGWB and Mr. Tejas Y. Mankikar, Scientist B, CGWB, Lucknow 4 22.02.2020 06.08.2020 UPPCB 5 10.07.2020 06.08.2020 CPCB 6 30.05.2020 05/06.08.2020 06.08.2020 JP Maurya, RO and Anil Kumar Sharma, AEE, UPPCB Bijnor 7 10.12.2020 29.01.2021 04.02.2022 8 30.06.2021- 14/30.07.2021 Under Mr. Anil Kumar 02.07.2021 consideration Sharma, AEE, UPPCB, Bijnor; Mrs. Reena Satavan, Scientist D, CPCB; Mr. JP Maurya, RO, UPPCB and Dr. R.K. Singh, Scientist D, CPCB
85. The principle non-compliances found from time to time, broadly, are comprised:
(i) Discharge of untreated effluent outside the premises reaching a kacha pond,
(ii) Manufacturing of thermocol block without any consent under Air Act 1981;
(iii) Storage of certain hazardous waste not authorized under Rules;
(iv) Non-installation of electric magnetic flow meters on water;
supply systems, inlet and outlets of ETPs and STPs;
(v) Non-preparation/maintenance of record/log books;
(vi) Treated effluent in ETP and STP was found non-complying the prescribed norms;
(vii) Non-installation of appropriate treatment system to deal with the nature of effluent in the unit of PP;
167
(viii) Non-maintenance of record of sludge;
(ix) Withdrawal of ground water without permission;
(x) Withdrawal of ground water beyond permitted quantity during the period of operation of valid NOC;
(xi) Absence of appropriate treatment system;
(xii) Serious discrepancies between the nature of effluent found in inlet and outlet which were self-contradictory.
(xiii) Mismatch in quantity of water (fresh and treated), available and used.
86. PP has seriously contested all these issues and repeatedly said that appropriate evidence has not been produced by inspection teams, samples were not collected as per the procedure prescribed in Water Act, 1974 and it was for the inspection teams to explain the discrepancy, if any, and PP cannot be saddled with any responsibility.
87. Arguments of PP in general have gone to the extent that cause/reason of violations of environmental laws found by inspection teams were to be proved by Regulators beyond doubt and PP is to be treated innocent till then, even if, on the unit premises, some objectionable element, material, substances at one or the other point were found and PP could not explain existence, disappearance or dilution thereof in absence of any appropriate system to justify it.
88. It shows that PP either lacks appropriate knowledge of environmental laws or there is a deliberate attempt to defy such settled principles. Thus, before dealing with the issues on merits, it is appropriate to recapitulate settled legal principles applicable in environmental matters since these principles have become integral part of environmental laws in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court, repeatedly, like precautionary 168 principle, inter-generational equity, polluter's pay, absolute liability and reverse burden on the violator.
89. Here is a case where industrial unit was functioning at the present premises since 2004, had installed borewells, not installed appropriate effluent treatment system, discharging pollutant, yet no effective action, preventive and remedial, was taken by Statutory Regulators, and only on the intervention of Tribunal some actions were taken, though wholly inadequate. This could not have been possible without collusion and cooperation of responsible Officials of Regulators. It is also understandable that this collusion and cooperation do not come in charity. In fact, this laxity and apathy on the part of State's officials in environmental matters bring in the intervention of Apex Court, repeatedly, in last more than four decades and Executive, to cover up their own failure, have attempted to term this intervention of Supreme Court as 'Judicial Activism'.
90. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996)5SCC281, Court justified its interference (so called judicial activism) in environmental matters and said that even though it is not the function of court to see day to day enforcement of law, since that is the function of executive, yet non-functioning/apathy of enforcement agencies to implement law for protection of fundamental rights of people, had left no other option but to grant indulgence for protection of environment and in substance for protection/enforcement of fundamental right of life enshrined under Article 21 to the people of this country.
91. Friedmann in its jurisprudence has said that no law can be imposed on utterly post value community. The best supplement of a good legislation is an informed citizenry and people of country would wake up to the alarming situation of environment (Paryavaran) and take up their 169 responsibilities, environmental legislation would become instruments of social change.
92. Time needed initiatives from all concerned authorities, agencies and individuals like, Government, legislature, judiciary, educational institutions, voluntary organizations and informed and educated people to create a social awareness about value and valuables of Indian tradition of respect towards nature. Law of Karma introduced law of possession, action, reaction, compensation and requisition. Man create destiny, mould future and determine character by its thoughts and deeds. What one deserve, gets now and what one shall make, receive in future. One may enjoy nature but has no right to exploit it so as to render it unavailable for such use by coming generations. It is against the principle of intergenerational equity.
93. The frequent complaints of degradation of environment are glaring examples of the attitude and behaviour of Executives, how they consider issue of environment and deal with it. Executives, under constitution, are bound to implement rule of Law, being part of governance, yet do not hesitate in violating and disobeying laws relating to environment whenever they get such an opportunity and many times create opportunity to violate law relating to environment. In fact, the mindset of Executives appears to be as if issue of environment is nothing but a time and money wastage and an obstruction to their so-called developmental activities. Not only they have forgotten the teachings and commands, handed down to the inhabitants of Indian subcontinent, i.e., to give respect to nature and treat it as their valuable asset, to protect and preserve in the form it is, for that will be the only way to live a long, happy and healthy life. Even International Resolutions and Conventions which have now taken shape in the last about 5 decades, are being ignored and flouted though on public 170 platforms, speeches are given in high sounded words but not adopted in practice.
94. Fortunately, we find that judiciary is the only institution which has always responded with commitment, fortitude and conviction to protect environment whenever issues have been brought before it complaining about damage, degradation and loss to environment, in one or the other way. In the last more than four decades, Institutions of Justice have record of standing for environment in every walk of life. Whenever any attempt was made to degrade environment, judiciary has responded, taken care and adjudicated issues by giving necessary directions for preservation and protection of environment. It has also taken strict view wherever required by directing action against erring peoples, whether individual or collective, including even officials of the Government and has also not hesitated whenever required to impose heavy cost by way of environment compensation, damages etc. Though power of legislation is with Centre and State Legislatures, some statutes have been enacted with the objective of protection of environment but in-depth and hard felt concern has been shown only by judicial institutions. It has also recognised certain important principles in the matter of environment i.e., Precautionary Principle, Polluters pay, Doctrine of Trust and Principle of Burden upon Violator. Article 21 has been read as to include Fundamental Right of people to live in healthy environment. Court has held that Right to Life includes right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for enjoyment of life.
95. The issue relating to damages/compensation and further remedial or restorative action for the degradation/loss/damage caused to environment is largely governed by judicial precedents of Apex Court which has acted as a champion for protection of environment in the last 171 almost four decades having considered various activities causing degradation/damage to environment in multi-various manner. A quick and brief retrospect of such relevant authorities will prove to be a useful guide as also binding precedent for answering questions relating to protection of environment, determination of environmental compensation, further direction necessary for remediation/restoration of environment and also to ensure that no further violation of environmental laws takes place.
96. In Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Shri Vardhichand & Others, AIR1980SC1622, non-disposal of waste, stinking open drains and pollution created due to public excretion by nearby slum dwellers was brought to the notice of the court by the residents, by way of filing an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Magistrate held that local municipal body was responsible for cleaning and removal of waste. The matter came to Supreme Court. Upholding order of Magistrate, Court said that maintenance of public health is the statutory responsibility of Ratlam Municipality and its defence of lack of funds is of no consequence. Court issued various directions to Ratlam Municipality so as to maintain public health.
97. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others, AIR1985SC652, issue of indiscriminate limestone quarrying causing ecological disturbance was brought to the notice of Supreme Court. Issues involving environment and development opposing each other were sought to be canvassed. Court preferred primacy to environment through the concept of 'sustainable development' and further said that whosoever has caused harm to environment, has absolute liability, not only to compensate the victim of pollution, but also to bear cost for restoration of environmental degradation. 172
98. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement (supra), Court said that over thousands of years, man had been successful in exploiting ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of population, demand for land has increased and forest growth is being cut down. Man has started encroaching upon nature and its assets. Scientific developments have made it possible and convenient for man to approach the places which were hitherto beyond his ken. Consequences of such interference with ecology and environment had now come to be realised. It is necessary that the Himalayas, and Forest growth on mountain range should be left uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. With regard to top soil, Court said that "the top soil can be preserved without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may remain intact ...... tapping of (natural) resources have to be done with requisite attention and care, so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way, (and) there may not be any depletion of water resources and long term planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth. It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation".
99. Court emphasised that preservation of environment and keeping ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only governments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and every citizen must remind to himself that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
100. In Sachidananda Pandey vs. State of West Bengal & Others, AIR1987SC1109, dealing with the matter pertaining to environment, Court said that whenever a problem of ecology is brought before it, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. 173 When a court is called upon to give effect to the directive principles of fundamental duties, it cannot shirk its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy making authorities. The least court must give is, to examine whether appropriate considerations are gone in mind and irrelevancies are excluded. In appropriate cases Court could go further but how much further would depend upon the circumstances of the case. Court may always give necessary directions.
101. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR1987SC1086 (Sodium gas leak case), issue of gas leak in a chemical factory and its repercussions came to be considered. Court expanded the doctrine of liability by modifying 'strict liability' principle enshrined in Rylands v. Fletcher to 'absolute liability; and said, "enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas, poses an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken-the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be not answer to the enterprise to say that it has taken all reasonable care....".
102. Court also said that larger and more prosperous enterprise, greater must be the amount of compensation payable for the harm caused on account of the activity being carried on by the industry.
103. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR1988SC1037 (pollution by tanneries in Ganga River), Court said that the State is under an obligation to stop exploitation of natural resources. 174
104. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Others (1996)5SCC647, Court held "In view of the Constitutional and Statutory Provisions---, "Precautionary" Principle and "Polluter Pays" Principle are part of the Environmental Laws of our country".
105. Explaining "Precautionary" principle, Court said that it includes (i) environmental issues-by State Government and statutory bodies-must anticipate, prevent and attempt causes of environmental degradation (ii) where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for proposing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation (iii) the 'onus of proofs' is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that the action is environmentally benign.
106. "Polluter Pays" principle was interpreted stating that absolute liability for harm to environment extends not only to compensate victim of pollution but also the cost of restoring environmental degradation. Environmental protection and prevention of pollution is primarily function of executive but unfortunately, they have failed.
107. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India, AIR1992SC514, issue of mines licenses granted in Rajasthan for mining limestone or dolomite stone in Sariska Tiger Park was considered. Court issued various directions for protection of the area. It also observed that a litigation relating to environment initiated by a common person, individually or collectively, should not be treated as usual adversarial litigation. The person(s) is concerned for environment, ecology and wildlife and it should be shared by government also.
175
108. In Virendra Gaur vs. State of Haryana, (1995)2SCC577, Court said that Government had no power to sanction lease of land vested in municipality for being used as open space for public use. The word 'environment' is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance". It is duty of State and every individual to maintain hygienic environment. State in particular has duty to shed its extravagant unguided sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance in hygienic environment. Court further said:
"Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed, any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article
21."
109. Court also held that hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment. Court further said "Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the Municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the manmade and the natural environment."
110. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1996)3SCC212, Court said that once activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, a person carrying on such activity is liable to make good, the loss, caused to any other person, by his activity, irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on. It was held that polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the 176 harm caused by them to the people in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water.
111. Polluter Pays Principles means absolute liability for harm to the environment, not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of 'sustainable development'. As such, polluter is liable to pay cost to the individual sufferers as well as cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
112. With respect to polluter pays principle, Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (supra), in para 65, said that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suit to the conditions obtaining in the country.
113. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra), issue of damage to mother earth by industries producing toxic chemicals was brought to the notice of the Court. It was found that water in wells and streams turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human consumption or even for cattle and for irrigation. Court issued various directions which included closure of industries.
114. Again issue of pollution from tanneries in rivers including river Ganga was considered by Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (supra). Recognizing principle of 'sustainable development', Court held that it is a balancing concept between ecology and development and remediation of damage to the environment is part of the process of sustainable development; precautionary principle, polluter pays principle and new burden of proof have become part of environmental law of the country.
177
115. In M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath & Others, (1998)1SCC388 a two Judges Bench had an occasion to examine, "whether natural resources can be allowed to be used or processed by private ownership for commercial purpose". The background facts giving rise to above issue are, that a news item was published in daily newspaper 'Indian Express', dated 25.02.1996, under the caption "Kamal Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep his dreams afloat". The news item reveals that after encroachment of 27.12 bighas of land which included substantial forest land, in 1990, a Club was built in Kullu-Manali valley by a private company 'Span Motels Private Limited', which owns a resort-Span Resorts. The land was later regularised and leased out to the company on 11.04.1994. At the time of regularisation, Mr. Kamal Nath was Minister of Environment and Forests. The swollen Beas changed its course, engulfed Span club and adjoining lawns, washing it away. Thereafter, management took steps and by using bulldozers and earth-movers, turned course of Beas by blocking flow of river just 500 meters and creating a new channel to divert River to at least 1 km downstream. Supreme Court took suo-moto cognizance of the matter, and case was registered as W.P. No. 182/1996 under Article 32 of the Constitution. Notices were issued to the company as well as Mr. Kamal Nath. After considering the pleadings and other material, Supreme Court decided vide Judgment dated 13.12.1996 recording a finding that Motel had encroached upon an area of 22.2 bighas adjoining to the lease-hold area. Earlier, 40 bighas 3 biswas land, alongside Kullu- Manali Road on the bank of river Beas, was granted on lease to the above Motel for a period of 99 years with effect from 1.10.1972 to 1.10.2071. Besides above, the motel encroached upon 22.2 bighas of land further. It also built extensive stone, cemented and wire-mesh embankments all along the river bank. Various activities undertaken by motel show a serious act of environmental degradation on its part. Motel tried to defend construction 178 raised by it on the ground that it was to protect lease land from floods. Court held that motel interfered with natural flow of river by trying to block natural relief/spill channel of the river. With regard to river, it was observed that Beas is a young and dynamic river, runs through Kullu valley, between mountain ranges of Dhaulandhar in the right bank, and Chandrakheni, in the left. The river is fast flowing, carry large boulders, at the time of flood. When water velocity is not sufficient to carry boulders, those are deposited in the channel often blocking flow of water. Under such circumstances, the river stream changes its course by remaining within the valley but swinging from one bank to the other. The right bank of river Beas where motel is located, mostly comes under forest; the left bank consists of plateaus, having steep bank facing the river, where fruit orchards and cereal cultivation are predominant. The area is ecologically fragile and full of scenic beauty, should not have been permitted to be converted into private ownership, and for commercial gains. Having said so, Court refers to the right of public to nature and natural resources and said that public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic. Court refers to the work of David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) and Professor Barbara Ward where it was stressed upon that major ecological tenet is that the world is finite. Earth can support only so many people and only so much human activity before limits are reached. Absolute finiteness of the environment when coupled with human dependency on the environment, leads to the unquestionable result that human activities will, at some point, be constrained. There is a commonly recognised link between laws and social value but to ecologists, a balance between laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure a stable relationship between humans and their environment. Laws and values must also contend with the constraints imposed by the outside environment. Unfortunately, current legal doctrine 179 rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. Historically, we have changed environment to fit our conceptions of property. We have fenced, ploughed and paved. The environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to this malleability, and certain types of ecologically important resources-for example, wetlands and riparian forests - can no longer be destroyed without enormous long-term effects on environmental and therefore social stability. Need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. Court refers to the legal theory said to be developed in ancient Roman empire, i.e., 'Doctrine of Public Trust' founded on the idea that certain common properties such as rivers, sea- shore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of general public. English law as well as American Law on the subject was also referred to and then it is said in para 34 of the Judgment that our legal system includes Public Trust Doctrine as part of the Jurisprudence. State is the trustee of all natural resources which, by nature, are meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is beneficiary of the sea- shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. State as a trustee, is under a legal duty to protect natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. Executive, acting under Doctrine of Public Trust, cannot abdicate natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use.
116. Supreme Court while disposing of Writ Petition issued certain directions contained in para 39 of the judgment which included that the motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for restitution of environment and ecology of the area. Pollution caused by various constructions made 180 by motel in river bed and banks of river Beas has to be removed and reversed. NEERI was directed to inspect the area and make an assessment of the cost, likely to be incurred for reversing damage caused to environment and ecology. Further, motel is also required to show cause as to why it be not imposed pollution fine in addition to cost for restoration of ecology which it had to pay.
117. In S. Jagannath vs. Union of India & Others, AIR1997SC811, adverse effect of shrink culture in coastal zones notified under Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated 19.02.1991 came up for consideration and Court issued directions for closure of shrink culture industries in view of ecologically fragile coastal areas and adverse effect on environment.
118. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997)11SCC312 (groundwater matter), Court issued various directions including constitution of regulatory authorities for management of groundwater i.e., Central Government Ground Water Body as an authority under Section 3(3) of EP Act, 1986.
119. In Dr. Ashok vs. Union of India & Others, (1997)5SCC10, issue of use of pesticides and chemicals causing damage to the health was considered and directions were issued for constitution of a committee of experts and senior officers to collect information and take suitable measures in respect of insecticides and chemicals found to be hazardous for health.
120. The activity of fishing and reservoir within areas of national park in Madhya Pradesh was considered in Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund vs. Union of India, (1997)3SCC549. Court observed that livelihood of tribals should be considered in the context of maintaining ecology in the forest area and if there is shrinkage of forest area, State 181 must take steps to prevent any destruction or damage to the environment, flora-fauna and wildlife keeping in mind Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution.
121. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997)2SCC411 (Calcutta tanneries matter), Court considered issue of discharge of untreated noxious and poisonous effluents into river Ganga by tanneries at Calcutta, and ultimately issued directions for closure of tanneries, relocation and payment of compensation to the employees.
122. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997)11SCC327 (hazardous industries in Delhi matter), Court considered issue of pollution caused in Delhi by various industries engaged in hazardous, noxious products etc. and issued directions for shifting, relocation, closure and utilization of land for protection of environment and payment of compensation.
123. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others, (1997)2SCC267 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others, (2006)1SCC1, Supreme Court observed:
"The damage to environment is a damage to the country's assets as a whole. Ecology knows no boundaries. It can have impact on the climate. The principles and parameters for valuation of the damage have to be evolved also keeping in view the likely impact of activities on future generation.
124. Issue of poor efficiency of Common Effluent Treatment Plants at Patancheru, Bollaram and Jeedimetla in Andhra Pradesh was considered in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, (1998)9SCC580 and Court issued directions that industry should not be allowed to discharge effluent which exceeded permissible limits. Such industries should install system for release of effluents up to permissible limits. Similar directions in the context of industries in U.P., discharging 182 effluent beyond permissible limits, were issued in World Savior vs. Union of India & Others (1998)9SCC247.
125. In Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India, (1998)2SCC416, issue of urban solid waste management was considered and directions were issued.
126. Applying doctrine of accountability to the State and Statutory Regulators and its officers, in Pollution Control Board, Assam vs. Mahabir Coke Industry & Another, (2000)9SCC344, Court held that they are accountable for wrong advice.
127. Liberal attitude of courts in the matter of quantum of punishment in criminal prosecution for offences relating to environmental pollution was criticised in UP Pollution Control Board vs. M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd. & Others, (2000)3SCC745. It was held that courts cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. Courts must share parliamentary concern on the escalating pollution levels of environment. Those who discharge noxious polluting effluents into streams appeared to be totally unconcerned about the enormity of injury which they are inflicting on the public health at large, the irreparable impairment it causes on the aquatic organisms, to deleterious effect it has on the life and health of animals. Court should not deal with the prosecution for pollution related offences in a casual or routine manner.
128. A major irrigation project relating to construction of dam on Narmada River came up for consideration in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, (2000)10SCC664. The project involved construction of a network of over 3000 large and small dams. Explaining precautionary principle and burden of proof, it was held that the same would apply to 183 polluting project or industry where extent of damage likely to be inflicted is not known. But where effect on ecology or environment on account of setting up of an industry is known, what has to be seen is whether environment is likely to suffer and if so what mitigative steps have to be taken to efface the same. Merely because there will be a change in the environment is no reason to presume that there will be ecological disaster. Once effect of project is known, then principle of sustainable development would come into play and that will ensure that mitigative steps are taken to preserve ecological balance. Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
129. Where a project is likely to effect environment, a proper study of impact on environment ought to have been conducted and once such a study is conducted and project is found in public interest, necessary for development, the principle of sustainable development requires that the measures mitigating damage to the environment must be observed.
130. Precautionary principle, in the context of municipal laws means (i). Environmental measures, required to be taken by State Government and Statutory Authorities, and they must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation; (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental depredation; (iii) The onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industry, to show that his action is environmentally benign.
131. In Karnataka Rare Earth & Another vs. senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology & Another, (2004)2SCC783, certain mining leases for quarry of granite in Government land were granted under 184 Rule 3 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969. It was contrary to Rule 3A of the said Rules. The leases were challenged in Karnataka High Court in Public Interest Litigation. Writ petitions were allowed by a Learned Single judge and all grants were quashed. Intra Court Appeals were also dismissed by Division Bench. Lessees came to Supreme Court where an interim order was passed in favour of lessees on 19.11.1993. Ultimately, appeals were dismissed vide Judgment dated 18.01.1996 passed in Alankar Granite Industries vs. P.G.R. Scindia (1996)7SCC416. Lessees, who had continued with the quarry of granite, were issued notices by the Government requiring them to pay price of granite blocks quarried by them during pendency of the matter. This demand was challenged in Karnataka High Court alleging that quarry was valid, pursuant to the court's order, therefore demand is penal in nature and illegal. Writ petitions were dismissed by High Court upholding demand of price of granite blocks by State Government, and that is how matter came to Supreme Court in Karnataka Rare Earth (supra). It was contended that quarrying of granite was accompanied by payment of royalty, issue of transport permits, though under interim order of the Supreme Court but was lawful and bonafide. Negating the argument, Court said, demand raised by State of Karnataka can neither be said to be penalty nor penal action. It is in the nature of recovering compensation for minerals taken away without any lawful authority. Court explained underlining principle by holding "a person acting without any lawful authority must not have himself placed in a position more advantageous, then the person raising minerals with lawful authority". Relying on an earlier judgment in South Eastern Coal Fields Limited vs. State of M.P., (2003) 8 SCC 648, Court said that the doctrine of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit', would apply not only to such acts of court which are erroneous but to all such acts to which it can be held that 185 court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of facts and law. The principle of Restitution is attracted. Court said "when on account of an act of a party, persuading the court to pass an order, which at the end is held as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the Court and the act of such party, then a successful party finally held entitled to a relief, accessible to terms of relief at the end of litigation, is entitled to be compensated in the same manner in which the parties would have been if the interim order of court would not have been passed." Demand raised therefore, is not penal. Recovery of price of mineral is intended to compensate for loss of mineral, owned by it and caused by a person who has been held to be not entitled in law to raise the same. There is no element of penalty involved and recovery of prices is not a penal action. It is just compensatory.
132. In Deepak Nitride Limited vs. State of Gujarat & others, (2004)6SCC402, question of determination of compensation of degradation of environment or damage caused to any concern by applying principle of 'Polluter Pays' was up for consideration before a two Judges Bench. A Public Interest Litigation was taken in Gujarat High Court alleging large scale pollution caused by industries located in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Industrial Estate at Nandesari. On the order of High Court, 252 industrial units relating to chemical were also made party in the litigation besides State of Gujarat, CPCB, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Nadesari Industries Association. A common effluent treatment plant (CETP) was erected in the industrial estate with contribution made by industrial units. The complaint was that CETP was not achieving required parameters laid by State PCB. On 186 9.05.1997, High Court directed industries to pay 1 percent of maximum annual turnover of any of the preceding 3 years, towards compensation and betterment of environment. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. High Court also directed to keep the said amount separate, by Ministry of Environment, and utilize for the work of socio- economic upliftment of people of the affected area, betterment of education, medical and veterinary facilities, agricultural and livestock etc. The imposition of 1 percent compensation was challenged on the ground that court had no power to impose penalty or fine or make any general levy unless authorized by general statute. It was also said that in any case, award of damages may be by way of restitution to the victim or restoration or restitution and restoration of ecology but for this purpose a finding has to be given that there had been degradation of environment. It was urged that there is no damage to the people in vicinity in as much as CETP had permitted a separate channel to flow effluent into river which ultimately reached the sea and would not cause any damage to the people or villages in the vicinity. After considering the rival submissions, Supreme Court, in para 6, noted that the fact that standard prescribed by State PCB were not observed by industries discharging effluent from CETP to River Mahi and ultimately the sea is not disputed. However, that by itself would not lead to the consequence that such a lapse has caused damage to the environment. Court said, that compensation awarded must have broad co-relation not only to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprises but also to the harm caused by it. In a given case, percentage of turnover itself may be a proper measure because the method to be adopted for awarding damages and the basis of Polluter Pays principle has got to be practical, simple and easy in application. There has to be a finding that there has been degradation of environment or any damage caused to any of the victims by the activities of industrial units and then 187 certainly damages have to be paid. Court remanded the matter to High Court to examine the aspect of damage to environment and/the people, as the case may be, and thereafter to decide appropriate compensation to be awarded.
133. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others, (2004)12SCC118, dealing with the mining activities on Delhi, Haryana Border and in Aravalli Hills, Court said that where regulatory authorities either connive or act negligently by not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to the environment, natural resources and people's life, health and property, the principles of Accountability for Restoration and Compensation have to be applied". When there is an equilibrium between the interest of environment and development, Court said, "protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest." Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not necessary that there should always be direct evidence of harm to the environment.
134. Court also distinguished its earlier judgment in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2004)6SCC402, observing that it was decided on its own facts and in the light of the circumstance that there was no finding of any damage to the environment. Having said so, Court also said that the decision in the Deepak Nitrite (supra) cannot be said to have laid down a proposition that in the absence of actual degradation of environment by the offending activities, payment for repair on the application of 'polluter pays' principle cannot be ordered. Court reiterated that "in India the liability to pay compensation to affected persons is strict and absolute and the rule laid down in Rylands vs. Fletcher, (1868) 3HL 330: (1861-73) ALL ER Rep 1, 626: 19 LT 220, has been held to be not 188 applicable". Explaining judgment in Raylands vs. Fletcher (supra), Court said, the judgement was rendered in 19th sanctuary when all the developments of science and technology had not taken place. In modern day society, with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology, law has to grow to satisfy needs to fast-changing society. It has to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. Court said:
"an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone."
135. Court further said, "if the enterprise is permitted to carry on a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such activity as an appropriate item of its overheads."
136. Referring to its earlier order dated 14.10.2003, in these very matters, Court said, "principle of good governance is an accepted principle of international and domestic laws. It comprises of the rule of law, effective State institutions, transparency and accountability in public affairs, respect for human rights and the meaningful participation of citizens in the political process of their countries and in the decisions affecting their lives".
137. Court said that environmental concerns are at the same pedestal as human rights, both being traced to Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health are also rights which flow from Article 21. Consequently, Court directed to destroy 133 containers having hazardous substance, as recommended by Monitoring Committee. 189
138. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Another, (2009)2SCC147, (order dated 12.12.2008) in (Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2008), order of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, quashing complaint, filed by State PCB under Section 44 of Water Act, 1974 was challenged. High Court quashed proceedings on the ground that there was no material on record to show that Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi, at the relevant time, was incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The only question considered by Court in Appeal, was, "whether the view taken by High Court is justified or not". Court did not find the view of High Court to be correct in view of the averments made in the complaint, read with Sections 25, 26, 44 and 47 of Water Act, 1974 and hence allowed Appeal and set aside the order. Before Supreme Court, an argument was raised that the proceedings commenced in 1985 and long time has passed but rejecting this, Court said that lapse of long period cannot be a reason to absolve respondents from the trial, considering nature of the matter involving public health. If it is ultimately proved that the act of accused has affected public health, Court cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. It said, "The message must go to all concerned persons whether small or big that the courts will share the parliamentary concern and legislative intent of the Act to check the escalating pollution level and restore the balance of our environment. Those who discharge noxious polluting effluents into streams, rivers or any other water bodies which inflicts (sic harm) on the public health at large, should be dealt with strictly de hors to the technical objections. Since escalating pollution level of our environment affects on the life and health of human beings as well as animals, the courts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a causal or routine manner".
139. In Fomento Resorts & Hotels & Another vs. Minguel Martins & Others, (2009)3SCC571 (order dated 20.01.2009) in (Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 2000), a private company approached State Government for 190 acquisition of land comprised in Survey nos. 788, 789, 803, 804, 806 and 807 of Village Taleigao, Dona Paula for construction of Beach Resort Hotel Complex by highlighting its benefits. Acted thereupon, acquisition proceedings were initiated. Acquisition proceeding were challenged but in the meantime hotel project was completed and commenced function. Goa Bench of Bombay High Court allowed writ petition and quashed acquisition notification by judgment dated 26.06.1984. The judgment was reversed in appeal by Supreme Court in Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. vs. Gustavo Renato Da Cruz Pino, (1985)2SCC152 and matter was remitted to High Court. Subsequently, parties compromised and writ petition was withdrawn from High Court. The hoteliers entered into an agreement with the Government. The hoteliers thereafter, applied for extension of hotel building and this issue was raised again in a writ petition filed in High Court which was allowed by observing that extension of hotel building was impermissible. The issue of acquisition was also raised. Supreme Court formulated it as issue one and answered in negative in para 35 of the judgment. Next question was, whether public access to beach, available through survey no. 803 before acquisition, could have been restricted by hoteliers. Court refers to public trust doctrine and said that there is an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof. In para 54 of judgment, Court said, "The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations. For example, renewable and non-renewable resources, associated uses, ecological values or objects in which the public has a special interest (i.e. public lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the State not to impair such resources, uses or values, even if private interests are involved. The same obligations apply to managers 191 of forests, monuments, parks, the public domain and other public assets".
140. Elaborating it, in para 55, Court said, "Public Trust Doctrine is a tool for exerting long-established public rights over short-term public rights and private gain. Today, every person exercising his or her right to use the air, water, or land and associated natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that same resource or property for the long term and enjoyment by future generations. To say it another way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder has an obligation to use such resources in a manner as not to impair or diminish the people's rights and the people's long term interest in that property or resource, including down-slope lands, waters and resources".
141. Referring to ancient Indian heritage and culture which was in harmony with nature, Court said:
"The Indian society has, since time immemorial, been conscious of the necessity of protecting environment and ecology. The main moto of social life has been "to live in harmony with nature". Sages and Saints of India lived in forests. Their preachings contained in Vedas, Upanishadas, Smritis etc. are ample evidence of the society's respect for plants, trees, earth, sky, air, water and every form of life. It was regarded as a sacred duty of every one to protect them. In those days, people worshipped trees, rivers and sea which were treated as belonging to all living creatures. The children were educated by their parents and grandparents about the necessity of keeping the environment clean and protecting earth, rivers, sea, forests, trees, flora fauna and every species of life".
142. Court reiterated that natural resources including forest, water bodies, rivers, seashore etc. are held by State as a trustee on behalf of people and specially the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. State cannot transfer public trust properties to a private party. If such a transfer interferes with the right of the public, Court can invoke public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural eco-systems. The questions, were answered observing that access road cannot be obstructed. Court also 192 upheld the view taken by High Court that extension of hotel building was illegal and, therefore, it has to be demolished.
143. In Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association vs. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and others, (2009)9SCC737 (order dated 06.10.2009 in Civil Appeals No. 6776 of 2009 with 6777 of 2009), Public Interest Litigation was filed by Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Association') seeking directions for preservation of ecology and for keeping Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from pollution. It was alleged that large number of industries working in Tirupur area had indulged in dyeing and bleaching works and discharging industrial effluents into river causing water pollution to the extent that river water was neither fit for irrigation nor potable. It had also affected Orthapalayam reservoir and other tanks and channels of Noyyal river. Court directed to set up CETP with zero liquid discharge trade effluents. Court also directed the industries association to pay an amount compensating damage to ecology for cleaning and desilting operations and for remediation. In Appeal, Supreme Court initially directed industries association to deposit Rs. 25 crores and while deciding the matter finally, it observed that there has been unabated pollution by members of industries association. They cannot escape responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the ecology. They are bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge of the river and also for cleaning the dam. The principles of "polluters-pay" and "precautionary principle" have to be read with the doctrine of "sustainable development". It becomes responsibility of the members of the appellant Association that they have to carry out their industrial activities without polluting the water. Court also held that a number of farmers have suffered because of pollution caused by industries. Farmers could not cultivate any crop in the land and industries 193 have to pay to the farmers also. Court also directed State PCB to ensure that no pollution is caused, giving strict adherence, to the statutory provisions.
144. In Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association vs. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association & Others, (2009)9SCC737, Court said:
"in spite of stringent conditions, degradation of environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, the court may consider the closure of industrial activities in areas where there is such a risk. The authorities also have to take into consideration the macro effect of wide scale land and environmental degradation caused by absence of remedial measures.The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21.
145. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (104) vs. Union of India & Others, (2008)2SCC222, (order dated 23.11.2007) in (IAs No. 1324, 1474 and 2081-82 in WP(C) No. 202/1995), an application was filed on behalf of M/s. Vedanta Alumina Ltd. seeking clearance for use of 723.343 ha of land including 58.943 ha of reserve forest land in Lanjigarh Tehsil of Kalahandi District for setting up alumina refinery. Court proposed certain conditions which if agreeable, it would consider grant of clearance but in the context of principle of sustainable development vis-a-vis mining activities, Court said: "while applying principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is sustainable development--it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on inter-generational equity." Court further said that "mining is an important revenue-generating industry" but Court cannot allow country's national assets to be placed into the hands of companies without a proper 194 mechanism in place and without ascertaining credibility of the user agency.
146. Issue relating to illegal mining in the State of Orissa in violation of environmental laws was considered in Common Cause vs. U.O.I. & Others (2017)9SCC499. Two Writ Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before Supreme Court, one by Common Cause, a public- spirited Organization, and another by Prafulla Samantra and Another complaining heavy illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in districts of Keonjhar, Sundergarh and Mayurbhanj in Odisha, destroying environment and forest and also causing untold misery to the tribals in the area were considered by Supreme Court. When Writ Petition were entertained initially on 21.04.2014, noticing the averments that several mining operations were continuing without clearance under EP Act 1986 and FC Act 1980, Court directed Central Empowered Committee (herein after referred to as CEC) to make a list of such lessees who are operating leases in violation of law. The report dated 25.04.2014 submitted by CEC was considered on 16.05.2014 and Court found that in the above 3 districts, total leases granted for mining iron and manganese ore were 187 out of which 102 lease holders did not have requisite environmental clearance (under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986) or approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or approved mining plan and/or Consent to Operate under the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Court directed suspension of such 102 mining leases till they obtain requisite clearances, approvals or consents. The order dated 16.05.2014 is reported in Common Cause vs. Union of India & Others (2014) 14SCC155. Out of 187 leases, 29 were already determined or rejected or had lapsed and direction was issued for suspension of said 29 mining leases till they 195 commence operation after obtaining requisite statutory permissions etc. 53 iron ore/manganese ore mining leases were operational having necessary approvals under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, consent to operate under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also having approved mining plans but nothing was disclosed about availability of EC. 3 mining leases were located in forest as well as non-forest land, but mining operations were being conducted in non-forest areas. Court also examined above 56 operational mining leases and found that 14 were operating on first renewal basis under Section 8(2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as 'MMDR Act, 1957') read with Rule 24-A(6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereafter referred to as 'MCR 1960') and 16 mining leases were operating since lease deeds for grant of renewal were executed in their favour. The remaining 26 mining leases were operating on second and subsequent renewal basis with the renewal applications pending final decision with the State Government. Court allowed 14+ 16 mining leases to continue but in respect of 26 mining leases operating on 2nd and subsequent renewal applications, it found that in view of the earlier judgement in Goa Foundation vs. U.O.I. (2014)6SCC590 holding that for a second or subsequent deemed renewal no provision was available in view of Section 8(3) of MMDR Act 1957, Court directed to stop operation of 26 leases until express orders are passed by State Government under Section 8(3) of MMDR Act 1957. There was an amendment in MMDR Act 1957 with effect from 12th January, 2015 in Section 8(3) pursuant thereto remaining 26 leases also restart functioning. CEC in the report has dealt with the following ten topics:
I. "Production of iron ore and manganese ore without/in excess of the environmental clearance/Mining Plan/Consent to Operate.196
II. Mining leases operated in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
III. Illegal mining outside the sanctioned mining lease areas. IV. Mining leases acquired in violation of Section 6 of the MMDR Act, 1957.
V. Violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by the lessees.
VI. Illegalities involved in the mining leases of Essel Mining & Industries Ltd.
VII. Illegalities involved in the mining lease of Sharda Mines (P) Ltd. VIII. Massive illegal mining in Uliburu Forest land. IX. Inordinate delays in taking decisions by the State Government regarding renewal of the mining leases.
X. Other issues."
147. Court formulated four issues as under:
I. Leases lapsed under Section 4-A(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act, 1957) (11 leases);
II. Violation of Rule 24 of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as MCR, 2016) and Rule 37 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as MCR, 1960) (9 leases);
III. Illegal mining in forest lands (20 leases); and IV. Iron ore produced without/in excess of the environmental clearance (each of the operating leases involved)."
148. With respect to issue one Court found that it was also covered by order dated 04.04.2016 reported in (2016)11SCC455 and therefore did not survive for consideration. The remaining three issues, Court found overlapping with topics I, II and V dealt with, by CEC. Further topics III, IV, VI, VII identified by CEC were also found worth adjudication but in respect to topics VIII, IX and X, parties did not advance any submissions and hence Court accepted reports on those topics. The judgement deals with the topics identified by CEC from I to VII. CEC also reported the volume of mining to the extent of 2130.988 Lakhs MT of iron ore and 24.129 Lakhs MT of manganese ore. The above amount did not include extraction of ore without forest clearance. In terms of value which CEC determined on notional basis the iron ore extracted worth Rs. 17,091.24 crores while manganese ore worth Rs. 484.92 crores. With respect to illegal 197 mining, Central Government had also appointed Judicial Commission under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 vide notification dated 22.11.2010 appointing Justice M.B. Shah, a retired judge of Supreme Court to inquire on the Terms of Reference mentioned in Para 27 of the judgement. Commission's proceedings were also taken into consideration by Court. The objection raised by the lease holders on the report of CEC on its authority was rejected. CEC was earlier constituted by Supreme Court's order dated 09.05.2002 ((2013)8SCC198) and later by notification dated 17.09.2002 issued under Section 3(3) of EP Act 1986 it was constituted conferring a statutory status to the said body. Facts stated by Court regarding CEC were not disputed though there was some challenge to the conclusions drawn by CEC. MMDR Act, 1957 and MCR Act, 1960 were considered in detail and thereafter Court considered Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 27.01.1994 (hereinafter referred as 'EIA 1994'). Court said that EIA 1994 clearly contemplated that in the matter of mining operations site clearance shall be granted for sanctioned capacity and would be valid for a period of five years from the date of commencement of mining operation. It shows that on receipt of an EC, a mining lease holder can extract mineral only from a specified site, upto the sanctioned capacity and only for a period of five years from the date of the grant of an EC. This is regardless of the quantum of extraction permissible in the mining plan or the mining lease and regardless of the duration of the mining lease. Further, a mining lease holder would necessarily have to obtain a fresh EC after every five years and can also apply for an increase in the sanctioned capacity. Court very categorically said "There is no concept of a retrospective EC and its validity effectively starts only from the day it is granted. Thus, the EC takes precedence over the mining lease or to put it conversely, the mining operations under a mining lease are dependent on and 'subordinate' to the EC." Explanatory Note was added 198 to EIA 1994 on 04.05.1994 and note one was found relevant which deals with the expansion and modernization of existing projects. Referring hereto, Court said, if any proposed expansion and modernization activity results in an increase in the pollution load than a prior EC is required.
Project proponent should approach the concerned State Pollution Control Board (for short 'SPCB') for certifying whether the proposed expansion or modernization is likely to exceed the existing pollution load or not. If pollution load is not likely to be exceeded, project proponent will not be required to seek an EC but a copy of such a certificate from SPCB will be required to be submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency which can review the certificate. Note 8 permitted existing mining operations which have obtained NOC before SPCB before 27.01.1994, not to obtain EC from Impact Assessment Agency but this is subject to the substantive portion of EIA 1994 and 1st Note. It was made clear, if existing mining project does not have a NOC from SPCB, then an EC under EIA 1994 was required. Court then formulated two questions:
a. What is the base year for considering pollution load while proposing any expansion activity?
b. What is the duration for which an EC is not necessary for an ongoing project which does not propose any expansion, or to put it differently, what is the validity period for a no objection certificate from SPCB?
149. First question was answered observing that base year is immediately preceding year that is 1993-94. The arguments of mine holders that annual production even prior to 1994 may be considered to ascertain whether there was an expansion or not was rejected observing that high annual production in any one year is not reflective of a consistent pattern of production and it would also lack uniformity between mining lease 199 holders. Different base years for mining lease holders are not conducive to good governance. However, Court permitted an exception that if there was no production during 1993-94 in that eventuality immediately preceding year would be relevant. Further it is said that EIA is mandatory in character; applicable to all mining operations/expansion of production or even increase in lease area, modernization of the extraction process, new mining projects and renewal of mining leases. A mining lease holder is obliged to adhere to the terms and conditions of a mining lease and the applicable laws and the mere fact that a mining plan has been approved does not entitle a mining lease holder to commence mining operations. The approach of MoEF by issuing circular permitting ex post facto EC did not mean that MoEF intended to legalize commencement or continuance of mining activity without compliance of requirement of EIA 1994. It was obligation of everyone to abide by the law; and the soft approach taken by MoEF cannot be an escapist excuse for non-compliance with the law or EIA 1994.
150. Coming to Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA 2006'), Court said that reference to any circular is of no consequence. A statutory notification cannot be over ridden by a circular. With regard to the arguments advanced by the mining lease holders of confusion created by MoEF, rejecting the same, Court said there is no confusion, vagueness or uncertainty in the application of EIA 1994 and EIA 2006 insofar as mining operations were commenced on mining leases before 27.01.1994 (or even thereafter). Post EIA 2006, every mining lease holder having a lease area of 5 hectares or more and undertaking mining operations in respect of major minerals was obliged to get an EC in terms of EIA 2006. Court referred to major minerals since in the case in hand issue of major 200 minerals was under consideration. It was also clarified that a mining plan is also subordinate to EC. Another argument that whenever EC is granted it would have retrospective effect from the date of application was also rejected observing that grant of EC cannot be taken as a mechanical exercise. It can be granted only after due diligence and reasonable care since damage to environment can have a long term impact. Rejecting the argument that EC ex-post facto can be granted or should be taken to have been granted, Court said "EIA 1994 is therefore very clear that if expansion or modernization of any mining activity exceeds the existing pollution load, a prior EC is necessary and as already held by this Court in M. C. Mehta even for the renewal of a mining lease where there is no expansion or modernization of any activity, a prior EC is necessary.
Such importance having been given to an EC, the grant of an ex post facto environmental clearance would be detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreparable degradation of the environment. The concept of an ex post facto or a retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence including EIA 1994 and EIA 2006. We make it clear that an EC will come into force not earlier than the date of its grant.".
151. An issue was also raised as to what illegal mining is? Mining lease holders argued that mining operations outside the mining area would constitute illegal mining. It was rejected by Court observing that this approach would make illegal mining lease centric and this narrow interpretation given by CEC was not acceptable to Court. Explaining as to what would be illegal mining, Court said "the holder of a mining lease is required to adhere to the terms of the mining scheme, the mining plan and the mining lease as well as the statutes such as the EPA, the FCA, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention 201 and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. If any mining operation is conducted in violation of any of these requirements, then that mining operation is illegal or unlawful. Any extraction of a mineral through an illegal or unlawful mining operation would become illegally or unlawfully extracted mineral.".
152. Suggestion of Counsel for mining lease holders that only mining operations outside mining leased area would constitute illegal mining was not accepted in the manner it was suggested but Court said that such activity is obviously illegal or unlawful mining but Illegal mining takes within its fold excess extraction of a mineral over the permissible limit even within the mining lease area which is held under lawful authority, if that excess extraction is contrary to the mining scheme, the mining plan, the mining lease or a statutory requirement. Referring to Section 4(1) of MMDR Act 1957, Court said any person carrying out mining operations without a mining lease is indulging in illegal or unlawful mining. This would also necessarily imply that if a mining lease is granted to a person who carries out mining operations outside the boundaries of the mining lease, the mineral extracted would be the result of illegal or unlawful mining. Court also rejected argument of deviation stating, under the rules only 20% variation is permissible but it does not mean that mining lease for 5 years is given, a mining lease holder can affect 5 years quantity (with a variation of 20%) in one or two years only. The extraction has to be staggered and continued over a period of five years. Court also clarified letter dated 12.12.2011 of Ministry of Mines, Government of India observing that While mining in excess of permissible limits under the mining plan or the EC or FC on leased area may not amount to mining on land occupied without lawful authority, it would certainly amount to illegal or unlawful mining or mining without authority of law. Construing Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, Court said that whenever any person raises without any lawful authority, 202 any mineral from any land, in such a case the State Government is entitled to recover from such person the minerals so raised or where such mineral has been disposed of the price thereof as compensation. The words 'any land' are not confined to the mining lease area. As far as the mining lease area is concerned, extraction of a mineral over and above what is permissible under the mining plan or under the EC undoubtedly attracts Section 21(5) of MMDR Act 1957 being extraction without lawful authority. It would also attract Section 21(1) of the said Act. Further Section 21(5) is not only attracted but not limited to a violation committed by a person only outside the mining lease area - it includes a violation committed even within the mining lease area. With regard to the recovery of price of the illegally mined ore, Court said "In our opinion, there can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered from any defaulting lessee - it should be 100%. If there has been illegal mining, the defaulting lessee must bear the consequences of the illegality and not be benefited by pocketing 70% of the illegally mined ore. It simply does not stand to reason why the State should be compelled to forego what is its due from the exploitation of a natural resource and on the contrary be a party in filling the coffers of defaulting lessees in an ill gotten manner". Section 21(5) does not talk of any penalty and is not penal provision. Referring to "Karnataka Rare Earth v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology (2004) 2 SCC 783" and expressing agreement with the law laid down therein, Court said that recovery of price of mineral is intended to compensate the State for the loss of the mineral owned by it and caused by a person who has been held to be not entitled in law to raise the same. There is no penalty of element involved and the recovery of price is not a penal action, it is just compensatory. In para 157 of the judgement, Court said that the compensation should be payable by lease holders at 100% of the price of 203 the minerals as rationalized by CEC. With regard to FC Act 1980 referring to "Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Others (1987)1SCC213, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. 1989Supplement1SCC504 and "T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India (1997)2SCC267" Court expressed its view that as held therein, in a forest area, no mining is permissible unless Section 2 of FC Act 1980 is complied with and NOC is obtained from Forest Department. In para 180, Court also observed that any mining activity in forest in violation of Section 2 of FC Act 1980 is unauthorized and illegal and the benefit mining leaseholders have derived from such illegal mining would be subject to Section 21(5) of MMDR Act 1957. Court said "therefore the price of the iron ore and manganese ore mined by the mining lease holders from 07.01.1998 is payable until forest clearance under Section 2 of the FC Act is obtained by the mining lease holders." The suggestion that only 70% of the notional value of the ore mined illegally be recovered, was rejected and in para 185, Court said "We are of the view that Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act 1957 should be given full effect and so we reiterate that the recovery should be to the extent of 100%." In reference to the requirement of EC, in Para 186, Court said "We make it clear that mineral extracted either without an EC or without an FC or without both would attract the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act 1957 and 100% of the price of the illegally or unlawfully mined mineral must be compensated by the mining lease holder. To the extent of the overlap or the common period, obviously only one set of compensation is payable by the mining lease holder to the State of Odisha. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that whatever payment has already been made by the mining lease holders towards NPV, additional NPV or penal compensatory afforestation is neither adjustable nor refundable since that falls in a different category altogether.".
204
153. Clarifying an observation in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others (2011)15SCC658 and (2011)15SCC681, where observation was that violation of FCA is condonable on payment of penal compensatory afforestation charges, Court in para 187 of the judgement, said "We may note that this Court has held in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India that a violation of the FCA is condonable on payment of penal compensatory afforestation charges. This obviously would not apply to illegal or unlawful mining under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, but we make it clear that the mining lease holders would be entitled to the benefit of any Temporary Working Permission granted."
154. In State of Madhya Pradesh & others vs. Kallo Bai, (2017)14SCC502, the question was, whether an order of confiscation of vehicle and forest produce could have been passed before conviction, with reference to Section 15-A to 15-D of Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniam) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'MP Forest Produce Act, 1969'). Court held that the above Act was enacted with an object to regulate trade of certain forest produce in State of Madhya Pradesh, known for abundant biodiversity which generates minor forest produce such as tendu, harra, sal seeds and gum etc. Scheme of the Act shows that legislature intended to empower authorized officers of Forest Department for proper implementation of the provisions of Statute and to enable them to take effective steps for preserving forest produce. The said enabling power includes power of seizure, confiscation and forfeiture. Court held that confiscation proceedings contemplated under Section 15 of M.P. Forest Produce Act 1969 is a quasi-judicial proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. It proceeds on the basis of satisfaction of Authorized Officer with regard to the commission of forest offence. It was also held that Authorized Officer is empowered to confiscate seeds forest produce on 205 being satisfied that an offence under M.P. Forest Produce Act 1969 has been committed, and that being power under special enactment, general power vested in Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of seized material under Cr.P.C. would give way. Magistrate while dealing with a case of seizure of forest produce under M.P. Forest Produce Act 1969, should first examine whether power to confiscate seeds forest produce is vested in the authorized officer under the Act and if he finds so, then he has no power to pass any order dealing with interim custody/release of seized material. Such ouster or jurisdiction would aid in proper implementation of the statute. If in such cases power to grant interim custody/release of seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate then it will defeat the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided. Court further said:
"The said section makes it clear that section 15-D subjects itself to confiscation proceedings under Section 15, 15-A, 15-B and 15-C of Act. Further Section 15-D speaks of confiscation of all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other articles upon conviction of the offender for such forest offence. This Section is equivalent to Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this Section the confiscation after the conviction is subjected to separate confiscation proceedings as contemplated under Section 15, 15-A, 15-C. At the cost of repetition it should be noted that if a confiscation proceeding under Section 15 has commenced and the confiscation has already occurred, then there is no question of confiscation under Section 15-D again. If the confiscation has not taken place under Section 15, then the Court after final conviction can order confiscation under Section 15-D of the Adhiniyam."
155. Reiterating and further explaining, Court said, broad scheme of Act is to punish those who are in contravention of law at the hand of criminal Court. Confiscation being incidental and ancillary to confiscation, State of Madhya Pradesh separated process of confiscation from the process of prosecution. The purpose of enactment seems to be that the power of Criminal Court regarding disposal of property is made subject to the jurisdiction of Authorized Officer with regard to that aspect; jurisdiction of 206 Criminal Court in regard to the main prayer remains unaffected. Recording its conclusion, Court said that Section 15 gives independent power to the authority concerned to confiscate articles, even before guilt is completely established. This power can be exercised by officer concerned if he is satisfied that the said objects were utilized during commission of a forest offence. A protection is provided to the owners of the vehicles/articles if they are able to prove that they took all the reasonable care and precaution as envisaged under Section 15(5) of the Act and the said offence was committed without their knowledge or connivance. Criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings. Two proceedings are different, each having a distinct purpose. The object of confiscation proceedings is to enable a speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing offence while the object of prosecution is to punish the offender. The scheme of Act prescribes an independent procedure for confiscation. The intention of prescribing separate proceedings is to provide deterrent mechanism and to stop further misuse of the vehicle.
156. Issue of use of fire-crackers causing air pollution, whether should be allowed or not in Delhi and NCR area, was considered in Arjun Gopal & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2017)16SCC280 (Order dated 12.09.2017 in IA No. 52448 of 2017 in WP (C) No. 728/2015). Here Court referred to a decision of National Green Tribunal in Vardhaman Kaushik vs. Union of India, (2016) SCC Online NGT 4176, observing that there are seven major contributors of air pollution in NCR and these are (i) construction activity and carriage of construction material; (ii) burning of municipal solid waste and other waste; (iii) burning of agriculture residue;
(iv) vehicular pollution; (v) dust on the roads; (vi) industrial and power house emission including fly ash and (vii) emissions from hot mix plants 207 and stone crushers. It was further observed that bursting of fireworks is also one of the causes of air pollution. It was, in fact, due to the use of strontium chromite which is harmful and dangerous to human health, as concluded by CPCB. Consequently, Court observed that it has no option but to prohibit use of the said chemical in the manufacture of fireworks. Reiterating earlier observations, Court said that Right to Breath clean air is a recognized Right under the Constitution. Right to Health coupled with Right to Breath in clean air leaves no manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution deserves to be eliminated. Consequently, Court issued several directions as noted in para 70 to 72.2.16 in the judgment.
157. In Lal Bahadur v. State of UP & Others (2018)15SCC407, change of master plan and converting green area into residential one was considered. The issue was, whether such conversion is conducive to protection of environment or not. In the master plan of 1995 of Lucknow, area in dispute was reserved as green belt. In master plan 2021, the same area, shown earlier as green belt, was converted as residential. This part of master plan 2021 was challenged before Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court. Writ petition was dismissed. The matter came in appeal before Supreme Court. Court held in para 12 of judgment that change of area from green belt to residential is in violation of Article 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Bangalore Medical Trust v B.S. Muddappa & Others (1991)4SCC54, wherein Court had said that protection of environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, playground for children, promenade for the residents and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and a vital interest to be taken care of in a development scheme. Public interest in the reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds 208 cannot be sacrificed by leasing or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to some other use. Court also relied on an American Supreme Court Judgment Agins vs. City of Tiburon, [447 us 255 (1980)], wherein Court said: '... it is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of open space land to strictly urban uses, thereby protecting against the resultant adverse impacts, such as ...... pollution, ....destruction of scenic beauty, disturbance of the ecology and the environment, hazards related geology, fire and flood, and other demonstrated consequences of urban sprawl'.
158. In para 15, Court said that, "This Court had clearly laid down that such spaces could not be changed from green belt to residential or commercial one. It is not permissible to the State Government to change the parks and playgrounds contrary to legislative intent having constitutional mandate, as that would be an abuse of statutory powers vested in the authorities'. Court also observed, when master plan was prepared earlier and authorities found importance of such space, it was their bounden duty not to change its very purpose when they knew very well the importance of this place to be kept as open space. Court said, "The importance of park is of universal recognition. It was against public interest, protection of the environment and such spaces reduce the ill effects of urbanisation, it was not permissible to change this area into urban area as the garden/ Greenbelt is essential for fresh air, thereby protecting against the resultant impacts of urbanization, such as pollution etc. The provision of the Act of 1973 and other enactments relating to environment could not be permitted to become statutory mockery by changing the purpose in the master plan from green belts to residential one. Authorities are enjoined with duty maintain them as such as per doctrine of public trust."
159. Ultimately, Court quashed Master Plan 2021 changing use of area in question from greenbelt to residential and said that it shall be held in trusteeship only for the purpose of park in future. 209
160. Heavily striking upon the officials of Statutory Authorities of Government, in M.C. Mehta vs UOI & Others (2018)2SCC14, (I.A. No.93010 and 93007 of 2017 in WP(C) 4677 of 1995), (order dated 15.12.2017); Court said that invaders have pillaged Delhi for 100 of years but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens and officials governing Capital city. Court gave details of various unauthorized and illegal constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and commercial purposes which was allowed by the local bodies/authorities despite several orders passed by Court. Showing its anguish, Court said that it cannot remain spectator when violations of law affect the environment and healthy living of those who abide by law. When time fixed by Court sought to be extended by legislative exercise, Court did not approve the same and in Para 24, referred to its earlier judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2006)7SCC456 wherein Para 20 Court had said 'there cannot be any doubt that the legislature would lack competence to extend the time granted by this court in the purported law making power. That would be virtually exercising judicial function. Such functions do not vest in the legislature.'
161. In Goel Ganga Developers India Private Limited vs. Union of India, (2018)18SCC257, judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by NGT in Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online NGT 4213 was challenged. Tribunal held that the builder/proponent has violated conditions of EC and therefore, liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores or 5% of the total cost of project, whichever is less for restoration and restitution of environment damage and degradation. In addition, it shall also pay Rs. 5 crores for contravening mandatory provisions of environmental laws. Tribunal also imposed fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs upon Pune Municipal Corporation and cost of Rs. 1 lakh 210 each upon the said Corporation, Department of Environment, State of Maharashtra and SEIAA, Maharashtra. Two appeals were filed, one by the proponent and another by Pune Municipal Corporation. The factual background is that the Proponent purchased 79,900 sq. meters or 7.91 hectares of land comprised in six survey nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 in Vad Gaon, Pune. All these survey numbers were amalgamated to become one plot. Proponent applied for sanction of layout and building proposal plan on 12.03.2017 on an area of 15141.70 sq. meters, originally depicted as plot no. 3. Sanctioned FSI was 515313.16 sq. meters. Thereafter, on 05.09.2007, revised layout plan was submitted for an area measuring 28233.23 sq. meters and sanctioned FSI was 39526.54 sq. meters. Proponent also applied for EC vide proposal dated 27.06.2007. He assured that he would be erecting/constructing 12 buildings having 552 flats, 50 shops and 34 offices. 12 buildings were to have stilts with basements and 11 floors. Total built up area was indicated as 57658.42 sq. meters. EC was granted on 04.04.2008. Defining as to what is the meaning of the term "built up area", Court after referring to EIA Notification, 2006, said in para 16 as under:
16. From a bare perusal of the two hash tags (#) in Column 4 and 5 of Item 8(a), it is apparent that what is shown under Column 5 is actually a continuation of Column 4 and basically it describes or defines "built up area" to mean covered construction and if the facilities are open to the sky, it will be taken to be the activity area.
This by itself clearly shows that under the notification of 2006, all constructed area, which is covered and not open to the sky has to be treated as "built up area". There is no exception for non-FSI area."
162. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) as per legal representatives and others vs. District Collector Chittoor & Others (2019)4SCC500, the question was whether an area declared as water body can be leased out or not. Supreme Court said that High Court rightly held that a tank (water body) cannot be alienated, no patta can be granted in respect of tanks and water bodies including those that might have dried up or fallen into disuse. 211 In this regard, Court reiterated and followed its earlier decision and in Para 49 said:
"49. This Court has time and again emphasized the need to retain and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable. Land comprised in water bodies cannot be alienated to any person even if it is dry. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in:
(1) Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006)6SCC543; (2) M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997)3SCC715, and (3) Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. (2006)3SCC549."
163. Arjun Gopal & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2019)13SCC523 is a follow up of earlier decision with regard to firecrackers i.e. (2017)14SCC488. I.A. No.6 & 8 of 2016 and others were filed by manufactures of firecrackers as well as some other parties. The arguments were raised that there was no sufficient study as to what extent burning of crackers is contributing towards air and noise pollution and whether it was so serious so as to warrant ban. Second argument was raised with reference to the fact that bursting of crackers during Diwali is a religious factor and therefore, protected under Article 25. In Para 32, Court observed that "it is an accepted fact that bursting of firecrackers during Diwali is not only the only reason for deterioration of air quality. There are other factors as well. It calls for necessity to tackle the other contributory factors for air pollution and making the air quality as "very poor" and even "poor". Unregulated construction activity which generates lot of dust and crop burning in the neighbouring States are the two other major reasons, apart from certain other reasons, including vehicular pollution etc.". Dealing with Article 25 Court said that "Article 25 is subject to Article 21 and if a particular religious practice is threatening the health and lives of people, such practice is not entitled to protection under Article 25". The issue of economic hardship and unemployment was considered and answered in Para 44 may observing as under:-
212
"...First aspect is that the argument of economic hardship is pitched against right to health and life. When the Court is called upon to protect the right to life, economic effect of a particular measure for the protection of such right to health will have to give way to this fundamental right. Second factor, which is equally important, is that the economic loss to the State is pitched against the economic loss in the form of cost of treatment for treating the ailments with which people suffer as a result of burning of these crackers. Health hazards in the form of various diseases that are the direct result of burning of crackers have already been noted above. It leads to asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even cognitive impairment. Some of the diseases continue on a prolonged basis. Some of these which are caused because of high level of PM2.5 are even irreversible. In such cases, patients may have to continue to get the medical treatment for much longer period and even for life. Though there are no statistics as to what would be the cost for treating such diseases which are as a direct consequence of fireworks on these occasions like Diwali, it can safely be said that this may also be substantial. It may be more than the revenue which is generated from the manufacturers of the crackers. However, we say no more for want of precise statistical data in this behalf."
164. Further Court held that there is no complete ban and as much as there is no ban on green crackers.
165. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Others (2019)14SCC411, the issue of conversion of a property reserved for garden and development plan prepared earlier for other commercial residential purposes whether permissible was considered. Relying on the earlier decision in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa, (1991)4SCC54, Court said that it cannot be done. It referred to the following passage, following observations in Bangalore Medical Trust Case (supra):-
"23.The scheme is meant for the reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the City of Bangalore and adjoining areas and to preserve open spaces by reserving public parks and play grounds with a view to protecting the residents from the ill-effects of urbanisation. It meant for the development of the city in a way that maximum space is provided for the benefit of the public at large for recreation, enjoyment, "ventilation" and fresh air. This is clear from the Act itself as it originally stood. The amendments inserting Sections 16(1)(d), 38A and other provisions are clarificatory of this object. The very purpose of the BDA, as a statutory authority, is to promote the healthy growth and development of the City of Bangalore and the 213 area adjacent thereto. The legislative intent has always been the promotion and enhancement of the quality of life by preservation of the character and desirable aesthetic features of the city. The subsequent amendments are not a deviation from or alteration of the original legislative intent, but only an elucidation or affirmation of the same.
24. Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds for children, promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be taken care of in a development scheme. It is that public interest which is sought to be promoted by the Act by establishing the BDA. The public interest in the reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds cannot be sacrificed by leasing or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to some other user. Any such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to the attainment of a quality of life which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens.
25. Reservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds is universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation."
166. Thereafter in Para 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment, Court said:
"7. This Court has laid down that public interest requires some areas to be preserved by means of open spaces of parks and play grounds, and that there cannot be any change or action contrary to legislative intent, as that would be an abuse of statutory powers vested in the authorities. Once the area had been reserved, authorities are bound to take steps to preserve it in that method and manner only. These spaces are meant for the common man, and there is a duty cast upon the authorities to preserve such spaces. Such matters are of great public concern and vital interest to be taken care of in the development scheme. The public interest requires not only reservation but also preservation of such parks and open spaces. In our opinion, such spaces cannot be permitted, by an action or inaction or otherwise, to be converted for some other purpose, and no development contrary to plan can be permitted.
8. The importance of open spaces for parks and play grounds is of universal recognition, and reservation for such places in development scheme is a legitimate exercise of statutory power, with the rationale of protection of the environment and of reducing ill effects of urbanisation. It is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of 'open spaces land' to strictly urban uses, for gardens provide fresh air, thereby protecting against the resultant impacts of urbanization, such as pollution etc. Once such a scheme had been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act, by inaction legislative intent could not be permitted to become a statutory 214 mockery. Government authorities and officers were bound to preserve it and to take all steps envisaged for protection.
9. It could be legitimately expected of the authority to take timely steps in which they have failed. Their inaction tantamount to wrongful deprivation of open spaces/garden to public. This Court in Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 549 has laid down that there is duty to preserve the ecology of the forest area. This Court has enunciated the doctrine of the public trust based on ancient theory of Roman Empire. Idea of this theory was that certain common property such as lands, waters and airs were held by the Government in trusteeship for smooth and unimpaired use of public. Air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The American courts in recent cases expanded the concept of this doctrine. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the natural resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The aforesaid concept laid down by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388 and this Court held that the State Government has committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management.
10. This Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2715 had laid down that protection of environment is one of the legal duties. While setting up the industries which is essential for the economic development but measures should be taken to reduce the risk for community by taking all necessary steps for protection of environment. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) Supp. SCC 131, certain directions were issued by this Court regarding hazardous chemicals. Relying partly on Article 21, it was observed that life, public health and ecology are priority and cannot be lost sight of over employment and loss of revenue. This Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 598 has held that right to pollution-free air falls within Article 21. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213, it was held that any disturbance to the basic environment, air or water and soil which are necessary for life, would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. Precautionary principle had been developed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 715 which requires the State to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation."
167. On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, Supreme Court in Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SLP (Civil No.) 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of 215 restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. 'Polluter Pays' principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of "sustainable development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
168. In Hospitality Association of Mudumalai vs. In Defence of Environment and Animals and Others (2020)10SCC589, Court observed "precautionary principles makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environmental degradation."
169. The issue of mining leases granted in District Sonbhadra, in the vicinity of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary was considered in Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2021)1SSC93. Vide notification dated 27.03.2017, MoEF declared disputed area as 'Eco- Sensitive Zone' under sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub- section (2) and (3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
170. OA No. 429 of 2016 was filed by All India Kaimur People's Front (for short 'AIKPF') before NGT seeking direction for seeking directions for immediate prohibition of illegal mining in the vicinity of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary located in Village Billi Markundi in Sonbhadra District. NGT passed an order on 04.05.2016 directing State of UP to cancel all mining leases and all other non-forestry activities on the areas notified under Section 4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. Ultimately, vide order dated 13.07.2018, Tribunal directed that all leases under Section 4 area be 216 prohibited by State of UP forthwith. The review filed by State of UP was also dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2018. Leaseholders likely to be affected were not party and also not heard by Tribunal while passing closure order, they filed appeal in Supreme Court.
171. When the matter was pending in Supreme Court, State Government also issued Notification under Section 20 of Forest Act on 15.06.2020. Court observed that after expiry of lease, renewal applications were filed but no renewal was granted. Mere filing of application would not confer a vested right either for the grant or renewal and relying on Allahabad High Court judgment in Sukhan Singh v. State of UP & Others (2015)2AllLJ619 which received approval of Supreme Court in Sulekhan Singh & Company and Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2016)4SCC663, Court held that no direction can be issued for extension of lease, even if some period was obstructed by court proceedings. Observation with respect to extension, in para 36, are as under:
"The judicial opinions referred to by learned counsel for the State of UP no doubt lead to a more or less consistent view that a mere filing of an application either for the grant of a lease or for the renewal of a lease does not confer a vested right for either grant or renewal of a lease."
172. In Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority (HPBSM&DA) vs. The Central Empowered Committee Etc. & Ors (2021)4SSC309, finding gross violation on the part of proponents by raising construction in utter violation of Forest (Conservation Act) 1980, Supreme Court upheld direction of NGT for demolition of such construction raised in violation of environmental laws and further observed in respect of environmental rules of law as under:
"48. In a constitutional framework which is intended to create, foster and protect a democracy committed to liberal values, the rule of law provides the cornerstone. The rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by the law. The former comprehends the setting up of a legal regime with clearly defined rules and principles of even application, a 217 regime of law which maintains the fundamental postulates of liberty, equality and due process. The rule of law postulates a law which is answerable to constitutional norms. The law in that sense is accountable as much as it is capable of exacting compliance. Rule by the law on the other hand can mean rule by a despotic law. It is to maintain the just quality of the law and its observance of reason that rule of law precepts in constitutional democracies rest on constitutional foundations. A rule of law framework encompasses rules of law but it does much more than that. It embodies matters of substance and process. It dwells on the institutions which provide the arc of governance. By focussing on the structural norms which guide institutional decision making, rule of law frameworks recognise the vital role played by institutions and the serious consequences of leaving undefined the norms and processes by which they are constituted, composed and governed. A modern rule of law framework is hence comprehensive in its sweep and ambit. It recognises that liberty and equality are the focal point of a just system of governance and without which human dignity can be subverted by administrative discretion and absolute power. Rule of law then dwells beyond a compendium which sanctifies rules of law. Its elements comprise of substantive principles, processual guarantees and institutional safeguards that are designed to ensure responsive, accountable and sensitive governance.
49. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools
- conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges - of how they have been shaped by humanity's interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity's actions have charted. The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi- disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the 'law' element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of lawyers and judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle and the trust doctrine. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, state 218 and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere. It seeks to build on experiential learnings of the past to formulate principles which must become the building pillars of environmental regulation in the present and future. The environmental rule of law recognises the overlap between and seeks to amalgamate scientific learning, legal principle and policy intervention. Significantly, it brings attention to the rules, processes and norms followed by institutions which provide regulatory governance on the environment. In doing so, it fosters a regime of open, accountable and transparent decision making on concerns of the environment. It fosters the importance of participatory governance - of the value in giving a voice to those who are most affected by environmental policies and public projects. The structural design of the environmental rule of law composes of substantive, procedural and institutional elements. The tools of analysis go beyond legal concepts. The result of the framework is more than just the sum total of its parts. Together, the elements which it embodies aspire to safeguard the bounties of nature against existential threats. For it is founded on the universal recognition that the future of human existence depends on how we conserve, protect and regenerate the environment today."
173. In Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Others (2020)20 SCC581, a question was considered whether State could alienate publically available resources like pond and answered the same by holding that such transfer of alienation was impermissible.
174. Fundamental principles culled out from the above binding precedents, can be summarized as under:
"i. Protection and preservation of environment part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It includes right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health, right to shelter which encompasses adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, civil amenities like road etc. ii. Preservation of environment and maintenance of ecological balance is a social obligation of every person and also a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
iii. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance, pollution free air and water, sanitation, land etc. 219 iv. A balance and harmony have to be maintained in development and environment. Hence principle of sustainable development is the determining factor. Universal human dependence on use of environmental resources for the most basic needs render it impossible to refrain from altering the environment. As a natural corollary, environmental conflicts are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level of environment protection and the risk which are to be regulated. This aspect is recognized by the concept of 'sustainable development'.
v. Principle of sustainable development has certain salient features/subsidiary principles namely use and conservation of natural resources; Precautionary principle; Polluter Pay principle; intergenerational equity; new burden of proof; obligation to assist and cooperate, eradication of poverty and financial assistance to the developing countries; doctrine of public trust etc. vi. Natural resources including forest, water bodies, rivers, seashores, etc. are held by State as a trustee on behalf of people and specially the future generation. These constitutes common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. vii. Sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is the duty of the State under Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme its obligation of sustainable development based on intergenerational equity. viii. Environment is a matter directly under Constitution. Absence of law will not preclude Court from examining issue of environment. If Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to environment, it would under obligation to step in. ix. Precautionary principle is a fundamental tool to promote sustainable development. It provides for action to avert risks of serious or irreversible harm to the environment or human health in the absence of scientific certainty.
x. State government and statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental pollution. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
xi. The onus of proof is on the actor or developer or industrialist to show the actions are environmentally benign. xii. Polluter Pays principle means absolute liability for harm to environment extends to compensate victim of pollution and cost of restoration of environmental degradation. It cannot be restricted to cost of item/subject/material and/or natural resources like water, minerals, etc. xiii. Whenever there is violation of environmental norms and environment is degraded, violators must be saddled with liability of payment of environmental compensation besides undergo other proceedings including prosecution."
ISSUES I, II, III, IV and VIII
175. In the backdrop of above facts including judicial precedents, we find that issues I to IV and VIII though have been formulated separately but all 220 relate to the violation of environmental norms/laws on the part of PP and, therefore, can be considered together. The matter relating to abstraction of ground water, if unauthorized, is a serious violation of environmental laws and could have been covered by issues I and III but we have formulated the same separately to emphasis its own independent importance and seriousness, particularly, when the area in which PP industry unit is situated, comes in the category of over-exploited. The nature/kinds of violations referred to in different reports are different.
176. The matter can be examined report wise as well as the major violations considered separately. We, therefore, first propose to examine the issues reports wise.
177. The first one is report dated 07.05.2019. In brief, the violations pointed out in the inspection dated 08.03.2019 placed before us by report dated 07.05.2019 are:
(a) Inside drains of industries connected with kacha drain outside, behind the factory which is ultimately meeting kacha pond near village Ambheda.
(b) Hazardous waste like empty containers of paint, lacquer, electro-
plating chemicals, oil soaked, cotton rags, used oil etc. was found stopped though no authorisation for the same under HWMTM Rules 2016.
(c) Thermocol manufacturing unit found operational though no consent to establish/operate to such unit was granted.
(d) Treated effluent from ETP in wood case division, metal division and glass division was found violating norms in following respects:
Division COD (against BOD (against Cyanide Zn 250 mg/l) 30 mg/l) (against 0.2 (against 5.0 mg/l) mg/l) 221 Wood 6200 mg/l 1985 mg/l 1.6 mg/l Case Metal 0.49 mg/l Glass BDL mg/l 7.28 mg/l
(e) Water samples collected from ground water (hand pump) and pond behind PP unit was found deficient in the following:
Ground Alkalinity as Hardness as COD Colour (as water CaCO3 (against CaCO3 (200 against 05 source 200 mg/l) mg/l) Hazen) Hand 637 mg/l 440 mg/l 12 Hazen pump Pond 330 mg/l 142 Hazen
(f) Electro flow meters were not installed on all water supply systems as well as inlet and outlet of ETP and STP.
(g) Proper record of the log books was not maintained.
178. Pursuant to inspection dated 28.03.2019, show cause notice dated 30.03.2019 was issued by Regional Officer, UPPCB requiring PP to show cause as to why it is not complying with the conditions of consent orders issued under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 and appropriate action may not be taken against it. Notice referred to the following violations:
a) No STP for treatment of domestic effluent from residential colony was established.
b) The untreated effluent from residential colony was being discharged in a pond through a kacha drain which was contrary to condition no. 3 of consent granted under Water Act 1974.
c) 12 rain water harvesting units were not established for recharge of water.
d) As per condition no. 8 of the consent order, electro-magnetic flow meters were not installed though directions were issued earlier also in various inspections.222
e) Six borewells were found on the premise but record of only 2 borewells was maintained. Other 4 borewells if not used, were neither dismantled nor disconnected and previous logbook if any maintained, was not made available.
f) Boiler of 1 ton/hr and 2 ton/hr were approved but instead of 1 ton/hr, 4 ton/hr boiler was established and 2 ton/hr boiler was kept as a standby which was contrary to the consent order.
g) On the side of metal section and near wood section, a new 10 lakhs kcal Thermic Fluid Heater was established for which no consent under Air Act 1981 either for establishment or to operate was obtained.
h) Effective buffing discharge control system in glass division was not established.
i) Thermocol unit of 1 ton/day near glass division was found operating without any consent or permission.
j) Some new sheds were found under construction without any permission of expansion.
179. We do not find from record that PP submitted any reply controverting above violations, within the time given in the notice.
180. Thereafter, another show cause notice dated 22.04.2019 was issued by UPPCB pointing out the above violations. Notice reproduced the recommendations/suggestions made by inspection team and then required PP to show cause, why consent dated 09.05.2018 granted under Water Act 1974 be not revoked and closure order be issued.
181. PP vide the letter dated 02.05.2019 replied the said notice, simply stating that it has closed Thermocol Plant till further orders and no expansion activity is in progress and anything if progressed, would be done 223 after approval from UPPCB. This admits that PP was running Thermocol Plant illegally without any consent to establish or consent to operate. With regard to other violations pointed out in the notice dated 22.04.2019, PP neither denied the same nor gave any explanation which means that he had no defence for the said violations.
182. Thus, at the earliest opportunity available, PP was apprised of various violations found in inspection dated 28.03.2019 but no reply denying correctness was given by PP and even letter dated 02.05.2019 shows its admission of running Thermocol unit without permission. Hence violations shown/found in the inspection dated 28.03.2019, mentioned in the report dated 07.05.2019, in our view, remain uncontroverted and bare denial at a much belated stage that too without any material to support, offered before us, is unacceptable.
183. The argument raised on behalf of PP that factual report was obtained by Tribunal without serving any notice upon PP, and even the report dated 07.05.2019 was not served upon PP and he had no occasion to reply the same has no truth when mentioning all the violations, notice was given but PP failed to place its defence. We find that violations found in the inspection dated 28.03.2019 were communicated to PP by UPPCB through show cause notices dated 30.03.2019 and 22.04.2019 but nothing has been placed on record to show that PP contradicted the violations found by joint Committee in the inspection dated 28.03.2019. Now the defence that report dated 07.05.2019 was not served upon PP, is of no consequence since entire violations found in the inspection dated 28.03.2019 were brought to the notice of PP and he was given opportunity to explain the same before any action under relevant statutes was taken against him by serving notice by UPPCB. PP neither placed anything to show that the said violations found by the Committee were not correct by 224 submitting reply to UPPCB nor before us. A belated and afterthought defence, that too self-serving, without any material, is not credit worthy to disbelieve documented facts. On the contrary, his own letter dated 02.05.2019 deals with the aspect of illegally operating Thermocol Plant which he said that has now stopped. Meaning thereby, violations were there. Subsequent closure of the plant will not condone earlier violation for which PP was answerable, responsible and liable for appropriate remedial and other actions.
184. The next report dated 16.07.2019, pursuant to inspection made on 01.06.2019 is by a joint Committee comprising Mr. SK Tripathi, Scientist Assistant and Mr. AK Sharma, AEE, UPPCB, not under any order of Tribunal but PCB Headquarter. They did not make detailed investigation but some overt observations are made. They collected samples of treated effluent in different divisions selectively and gave report. However, here also some violations noted are:
(i) Empty container of paint, thinner, lacquer, electro-plating chemicals, oil-soaked cotton rags, discarded paint/lacquer sludge, used lubricant oil etc. were found, without any authorisation under HWMTM Rules 2016.
(ii) Electro-magnetic flow meters were not installed on the operational two borewells.
(iii) One STP of 60 KLD for residential part of the unit was under
construction.
(iv) This report though not comprehensive in as much as without verifying the contents of effluent from inlet and capability of system for treatment available in the unit, the outlet effluent results could not have shown a correct picture particularly when in subsequent inspections, it was found that relevant treatment system was not 225 available in respect of treatment of various elements/pollutants which were found present in inlet but not in outlet and no explanation could be forwarded by PP.
(v) Be that as it may, storage of hazardous waste not authorised and non-availability of adequate STP for treatment of residential effluent and non-installation of elector magnetic flow meter which was condition of NOC granted for abstraction of ground water, are certain violations found in this report also.
185. It may be noted at this stage that the above inspection was conducted not pursuant to order of Tribunal but report says that it received instructions from UPPCB Head Quarter. At the time of inspection, Shri AK Johri, Manager HR/Admin of PP unit were present. Nothing has been placed on record to show the violations found even in this inspection were not correct. In any case, violations found on 28.03.2019 were accepted by Tribunal vide order dated 06.08.2019 where it gave no credit to report dated 16.07.2019. Moreover when senior officers inspected the premises on 28.03.2019 and submitted report which was under
consideration of Tribunal, we find no occasion for two junior officers to submit a casual report. It appears that this subsequent inspection was made to give benefit to PP who was discharging polluted effluent and has also not installed appropriate STPs and ETPs. This has been found in later reports also when again senior official made inspections. Report based on inspection dated 01.06.2019 said that STP of 120 KLD were already installed while the fact admitted by PP also is that the same were commissioned on 14.06.2019 i.e., after inspection.
186. The next inspection was made on 16.10.2019 and report was submitted on 03.12.2019. This report we have reproduced in detail above 226 and summarise hereat only for considering at this stage in the light of arguments advanced on behalf of PP:
(i) No valid consent to operate for separate ETPs and STPs in different divisions and residential colony;
(ii) No adequate requisite biological treatment facility at ETPs installed at wooden and glass division;
(iii) Non-installation of secondary/biological treatment facility in any STP installed in the unit;
(iv) ETP was not operating continuously as no ETP sludge was found in ETP area of glass, wood and metal division;
(v) STP was not operating continuously since no STP sludge was found at STP areas of glass division, wood division and residential colony;
(vi) Non-maintenance of log book for ETP/STP for daily dosing of chemicals etc.;
(vii) In wood, glass and metal division, treated effluent was not complying with norms in respect to certain pollutants;
(viii) No MLSS concentration in Aeration tank of ETP was maintained hence ETP at wood division was not in adequate system to operate;
(ix) Secondary/biological treatment facility in ETP was not installed yet BOD was shown reduced in the outlet indicates dilution with fresh water. Treatment of BOD from inlet to outlet without installation of secondary/biological treatment facilities could not be explained;
(x) No flow meter at inlet and re-cycled pipes of ETP in wood, glass and metal division;
(xi) STP outlet effluent shows contents of certain pollutants which could not have been present in domestic effluent meaning 227 thereby there was mixing, grinding of industrial effluent from glass division with domestic effluent;
(xii) Non-installation of biological treatment system in ETP in glass division still COD was shown treated which was not possible hence dilution or bye-pass cannot be ruled out;
(xiii) Characteristic of inlet effluent of STP shows presence of industrial effluent along with domestic effluent in STP;
(xiv) With regard to hazardous waste management, agreement with TSDF expired on 31.03.2019 and record of 2017-2019 shows disposal of only ETP sludge, gloves/masks and old batteries to TSDF facility, hence, disposal/management of other waste could not be shown;
(xv) No labelling on bags and there was violation of Rule 17(1) of HWM Rules 2016;
(xvi) Daily hazardous waste generated and disposed not as per Form III prescribed under Rule 20(1) of HWM Rules 2016;
(xvii) No flow chart including material balance for production of each of the products was maintained or shown.
187. PP submitted reply dated 02.12.2019 to Regional Officer, UPPCB wherein the issues pointed out in the inspection dated 16.10.2019 were answered as under:
"a. We are maintaining 100% ZLD and as such there is no question of any leakages. Not a single drop goes into pond. The photographs of UPPCB team on 27.4.2019 show absolute dry drain at our factory.
b. Addition of other items in Hazardous Waste list. Authorisation for all items generated in the category of Haz. Waste has been obtained from UPPCB (Annexure-I) and accordingly such items lying stored, in factory premises have been disposed off to approved agent (copy of one such form-10 is attached herewith as Annexure-II). Earlier also they were returned to the same TSDF (Record available and shown to UPPCB officials regularly).
c. Thermocol Mfg. Consent.228
There is no generation of effluent in thermocol block formation by our factory as informed to UPPCB. However, consent application moved by us on 14.05.19, got approved by UPPCB on 27.09.19. Hence the issue is closed.
d. ETP treated effluent analysis.
The Case Goods effluent is treated on every Saturday (after stipulated operation of booths) as the booths are 'No Pump' spray booths. The booths extract the fumes of water base clear which enter in the chemical mixed tank solution and continuously, breaks the clear. The inspection was carried out on 16.10.19 and the booths were planned for cleaning on 19th Oct 19 (after each 15 days operation). Hence the issue evolved, but after scheduled treatment, the discharge shows perfect result (Annexure-II). Moreover, there was no question of CN availability as clarified in episode and reports dated 11.6.19. The same has already been and accordingly challenged vide our letter No. CLG/HR-31/19-20/08 dated 27.04.19. There was no question of CN present in the result.
e. Report of Glass division (ETP) is within limit. (attached as Annexure- IV) f. Report of Glass division (STP) found satisfactory. (attached as Annexure-V) g. Report of Metal division (STP) found satisfactory. (attached as Annexure-VI).
h. Report of sample collected from hand pump outside. Not related to us as no discharge of any water of our factory moves outside and the hand pump in question is at least 2 km from our factory and there are so many cottage industries exist in between. The nearby villages i.e. Amheda, Jivai and Karanpur are also involved in jobs of chemical colouring and electrolysis etc. at their homes."
188. It is further said that for violations pointed out in the letter dated 22.04.2019, PP has deposited Rs. 3.60 lakhs on 20.08.2019. Besides, pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 01.02.2017 passed in OA 301/2016, compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited on 17.02.2017.
189. With regard to the test reports of inspection team who visited premises of PP on 16.10.2019 and submitted report on 03.12.2019, PP relied on certain reports of Research Testing and Calibration Laboratory dated 17.07.2019. These reports will not help PP. Firstly, reports of 17.07.2019 would not be relevant to contradict report of samples collected 229 on 16.10.2019. Secondly, these reports show that samples were not collected by test labs as clearly mentioned in every report as under:
"Sample not drawn by RTCL".
190. PP obtained these reports by giving samples collected as per its choiced place, hence it cannot be treated a valid material to contradict reports of officials who collected samples in presence of representative of PP.
191. Committee also recommended environmental compensation under various heads in the aforesaid report dated 03.12.2019. Record shows that UPPCB issued notice dated 29.01.2020 under Section 33A of Water Act 1974 referring to report dated 03.12.2019 and requiring PP to show cause as to why compensation proposed by Committee of Rs. 2,49,71,157/- be not realised. The said notice remained unreplied and thereafter, UPPCB passed orders imposing compensation under different heads.
192. In the reports relied by PP, it is mentioned that these reports are not to be used, wholly or in part in court of law without permission of RTCL and also says that water parameters except BL test were such as specified by customer. Moreover, said reports are wholly irrelevant in respect to the testing conducted after collecting samples on 16.10.2019 as reports are of the samples submitted on 17.07.2019 and tests conducted between 18th to 20th July, 2019 by the private lab.
193. It is not the case of PP that joint Committee inspection made on 16.10.2019 was in absence of PP representative or any objection was raised by at the time of collection of samples. Further, we find from record, PP's another reply dated 21.07.2020 submitted to Chairman, CPCB in which it has challenged penalty imposed by UPPCB of Rs. 21,30,417/- for 230 violation of HWM Rules 2016. Relevant extract of reply by PP may be reproduced as under:
"b. The Inspection Report notes that about 914kg of ETP sludge was found in the covered shed, which was deemed to have generated between 1st April, 2019 to 15th October, 2019 i.e., 6.5 months. The Report thereafter took into account the average ETP sludge generation during 2017-18 and 2018-19 and arbitrarily assumed that for a 6.5-month period from 1st April. 2019 to 15th October another amount of 2968 kg of ETP sludge must have been generated and would have been disposed by us to unauthorised places.
c. The Inspecting Officials failed to account for the fact that ETT sludge is cleared from the premises on a regular basis 4 times every year January, end of April, end of July and end of October. This can be seen in the Form 10 and challans filed by us in the period between 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 (attached herewith as Annexure-I).
d. From said Annexure-I, the quantum of ETP sludge accumulated during the period August-October and disposed off by end of October is as below:
August-October 2017 1249 Kgs
August-October 2018 1040 Kgs
August-October 2019 1165 Kgs
e. Therefore, as on the inspection on 16.10.2019, the ETP sludge on premises relates to the quantum accumulated from end-July to mid-October 2019, i.e. about 2.5-3 months and not for 6.5 months.
f. Therefore, the quantity of ETP sludge of 914 kgs for 2.5- month period from August to 15 October is not unusual and in fact, is slightly less than the average ETP sludge generation of previous years for the same period.
g. It is submitted that the method and methodology used for calculating the compensation for alleged illegal disposal of hazardous waste in said Inspection Report dated 16.10.2019 is factually incorrect and wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.
h. The Inspection Team arbitrarily without seeking any documentary proof and in ignorance of the aforesaid documentary evidence reported with the UPCB assumed that there was no disposal of the ETP sludge generation from 1st April 2019 onwards and before inspection on 16.10.2019, This analogy and conclusion of the Inspecting Officials is sans any documentary or other proof and is completely whimsical, unilateral., arbitrary and without any basis whatsoever.
i. Therefore, there is no basis for the imposition of Environmental Compensation assessed and determined to be Rs. 21,30,417/-231
(Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Seventeen Only).
j. We have always complied with the law and have the required approval under Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement Rules. 2016. It is most respectfully submitted that the unit has a valid lifting agreement with M/s Bharat oil and waste management Ltd, and all waste management is efficaciously conducted under the said agreement, Relevant approval and agreement thereto are annexed herewith as Annexure-II and Annexure-III.
k. Empty containers of chemicals are returned back to supplier e.g. M/s Krishna Murari Organosys Pvt.L.td. who are having authorisation from M/s. Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd. for this purpose (Annexure-IV)."
194. PP in the above reply has said that at the best penalty of only Rs. One lakhs under HWM Rules 2016 could have been imposed and not beyond that. In the reply, PP said that ETP sludge used to be collected four times in the year i.e., January, April, July and October. It has however, not disputed that 914 kg ETP sludge was found in the shed on 16.10.2019. PP claimed that the sludge was collected at the end of July 2019/August 2019 and therefore, the sludge found was not of six and half months. However, record shows that agreement with TSDF had expired on 31.03.2019. It is not stated anywhere that the documents now shown to us were ever produced before inspection team at the time of inspection. Documents produced after almost 10 months with the letter dated 21.07.2020, are unreliable and may have been prepared subsequently. PP has placed on record agreement dated 01.04.2014 entered with M/s Bharat Oil & Waste Management Ltd., registered office at B-5, East of Kailash, New Delhi which was valid for the period of 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019. No further agreement, if executed, has been placed on record.
195. PP has also placed on record an authorization letter dated 16.07.2019 issued by UPPCB under HWMTM Rules 2016 authorizing hazardous waste of the following category:
232
S. Category of Authorised mode of Quantity
No. Hazardous Waste disposal or (ton/annum)
as per the recycling or
Schedules I, II and utilization or co-
III of these rules processing, etc.
1 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 50 no. per day
(category 33.1) Recyclers
Empty Containers
2 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 10kg/day
(category 33.2) Recyclers
Cotton Waste,
Used Cloth Mask
3 Part B Schedule 3 TSDF/Authorized 5kg/day
(category B3040) Recyclers
Rubber Gloves
4 Part B Schedule 3 TSDF/Authorized 20 No./month
(category B3040) Recyclers
Old Batteries
5 Schedule 4 TSDF/Authorized 50kg/month
(category 19) Recyclers
Paint Booth Sludge
6 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 0.15kg/day
(category 1.3) Recyclers
Oily Rags
7 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 0.1KL/month
(category 5.1) Recyclers
Used Oil
8 Part D Schedule 3 TSDF/Authorized 8kg/day
(category B3020) Recyclers
Empty Corrugated
Cartons
9 Schedule I TSDF 20kg/month
(category 6.3)
Melting Furnace Ash
10 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 5kg/month
(category 15.2) Recyclers
Asbestos
Gloves/Cloth
11 Schedule I TSDF/Authorized 5 no./month
(category 3.3) Recyclers
Fuel Filter and Air
Filter
12 Schedule I TSDF 1000kg/month
(category 12.6)
Polishing Dust
13 Schedule I TSDF 40 kg/day
(category 35.3)
ETP Sludge
196. This authorisation was valid upto 16.07.2024. Thus, violation of storage of hazardous waste which was not earlier authorised, stands admitted. PP did not possess any authorisation when inspection were 233 made on 28.03.2019 and 01.06.2019 and there was clear violation on its part.
197. PP has said that after end of July/August further collection of sludge was at the end of October or November. That be so, ETP and STP sludge must have been present in the respective area but report clearly said that no ETP sludge was found at ETP areas of glass, wood and metal divisions. Similarly, no STP sludge was found at STP areas of glass division, wood division and residential colony. The sludge, which is being talked above, was found at a different place. ETP and STP sludge, which ought to have been found in different divisions at the relevant places, was not found. When the sludge clearance would have been at the end of October and the inspection was made on 16.10.2019, ETP and STP sludge in all the divisions at the relevant places must have been present particularly, when the documents placed on record by PP show that about 1165 kg ETP sludge was collected vide challan dated 31.10.2019 which is on page 402.
198. PP has argued that presence of pollutants in the inlet of ETP and STP would not be of any legal consequence in as much as it is only the outlet contents which are material and only that has to be examined. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Joint Committee of experts has found inlet of ETP/STP with certain pollutants/elements, which could not have been treated unless a particular system of treatment is installed by concerned PP and in absence of such system, those pollutants could not have been treated. Hence, it was for PP to explain as to how such pollutants were present in the inlet but disappeared in the outlet of ETP/STP when required treatment system was not installed. We recollect that biological treatment facility at ETP and STP in wood and glass division and secondary/biological treatment facility in STP were not found installed by PP.
234
199. The reliability of documents of sludge collection are also doubtful and what PP has said, documents contradict. In any case, there is no reason to doubt the findings recorded by joint Committee on mere denial without substantiating by cogent material. Committee's finding were not shown incorrect either at the time of inspection or immediately thereafter or even now.
200. We find it appropriate to give a small description of 'Effluent Treatment System' to understand as to what kind of system was not available with PP, necessary for treatment of particular kinds of pollutant which were found present in the inlet but disappeared in the outlet and PP could not explain as to how the same could be treated in absence of requisite system necessary for treatment of such pollutants.
201. Broadly Effluent Treatment Plant are of three category i.e. Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.
202. The stand of PP with reference to the test results of NABL accredited laboratory was also considered in the action taken report dated 05.08.2020 submitted by CPCB and it has been stated therein that PP was not having adequate two stage biological treatment system i.e. Primary Clarify/secondary biological treatment units at ETPs and STPs located at wooden, metal and glass hardware sections as also STP located in residential colony and in absence of the above system, it was not possible to achieve prescribed effluent discharged norms. PP at no stage has made any attempt to explain as to how it could attain discharge norms in the outlet of ETPs/STPs when technically it is not feasible/possible hence the inference drain by the Committees cannot be said to be incorrect and we find no reason not to accept the same. 235
203. In the reply dated 20.08.2021 also PP has reiterated that the contents of ETP/STP inlet waste water are not relevant when in the outlet everything was alright. PP however has made no attempt again to explain as to how such treatment would have been done in the absence of adequate and appropriate treatment system having not been installed by PP. In the subsequent report of 05.08.2020, there is reference of some compliances and the violations remained un-complied were also stated separately by UPPCB in its report dated 01.08.2020 which was submitted by CPCB vide report dated 05.08.2020. These violations which remained un-complied even till 01/05.08.2020, we have reproduced in para 30 above and briefly state as under:
(a) Wood Division:
(i) No flow meter at recycle water pipeline;
(ii) Logbook record of ETP for daily dosing of chemical in physico-
chemical treatment, flow meter reading at inlet and recycling point etc. not maintained.
(b) Glass Division:
(i) ETP, STP, logbooks not maintained with regard to flow meter reading daily sludge and daily dosing of chemicals etc.
(c) Metal Division:
(i) ETP, STP, logbooks not maintained with regard to flow meter reading daily sludge and daily dosing of chemicals etc.
(ii) Flow meter at recycle water pipeline not installed.
(d) STP at residential colony:
(i) Logbook for daily dosing of chemicals in physico-chemical treatment and flow meter reading etc. not maintained.
(ii) Hazardous waste management, automatic water sprinkling arrangements not installed fire alarming systems, flame 236 arresters, smoke /heat detectors, fire extinguishers etc. not installed.
204. Again several violations have been found in the inspection dated 10.12.2020 as reported vide report dated 29.01.2021 which we have quoted in para 37 above but here also the defence of PP is that there was sampling defect and that some systems were installed subsequently. Any subsequent installation or compliance of some aspects would not condone earlier violations. With regard to sampling defect, nothing has been pointed out as to what was wrong in the manner of sampling. The reliance placed on private reports based on the samples submitted by PP at some different point of time would be of no benefit to PP. We therefore, are clearly of the view that throughout there has been various kinds of violations on the part of PP and it has not hesitated even in misrepresenting the facts in dubious ways. Inspection reports have also pointed out existence of several pipes and points, reason whereof could not be explained by PP. The report date 14/30.07.2021 has found some compliances and some violations. This is obviously subsequent to report dated 29.01.2921 based on inspection dated 10.12.2020. Later compliances, if any, would not condone earlier violations. Moreover in the report dated 14/30.07.2021, Committee has not conducted water audit properly by application of its own expertise but has based its findings on the information supplied by PP.
205. Report says that PP was using treated/recycled water in industry. Water audit is based on log book of Feb.2021 to June 2021.It is said that only 113.54 KLD water was extracted on average basis. Use of this water has been shown in different places as under; (a) Glass Div.-18.57KLD ; (b) Metal Div.- 23.84 KLD (c) Wood Div.- 15.37 KLD (d) Residential colony and 237 VIP colony - 37.97+10.81=48.78 KLD (e) Canteen + General - 5.26 +1.28 =6.54KLD.
206. PP has stated in his submissions that it is employing 7400 workers and as per CGWA norms requirement of water for drinking and other domestic purposes is 30 litre per day. This brings to 222 KLD water only for employees drinking and other purposes. However extraction is only 113.54 KLD. If we go very conservatively and take requirement as only 10 litres per day, even than it will come to 74 KLD only for drinking and domestic purposes. Further no consumption in green belt has been shown. As per consent conditions, PP was required to maintain 30% land as green belt. The total area, as per PP itself is 50 acres. Therefore about 17 acres was to be maintained as green belt. If treated water would have been used for green belt, the entire calculation shown in log books by PP would get truncated. Committee ought to have examined the requirement in different areas and then should have compared with record produced by PP. This has not been done. Committee has also ignored that the period of Feb. to June 2021 included the peak pandemic period, that too second wave, when for substantial period there was lock down. In our view water audit needs to be conducted afresh. Report on the aspect of water audit cannot be accepted.
207. Now, we propose to consider major violations found on the part of PP in different reports as also PP's defence and our findings. There may be some over-lapping or repetition but for better appreciation of the matter, we find it unavoidable.
A. Discharge of domestic sewage directly in a kacha drain outside the unit premises:
208. Consent dated 09.05.2018 valid for a period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019: It was given for production of metal artwares 30 ton/month, 238 glass artware 150 ton/month and wood artwares 15 ton/month. It allowed discharge of effluent as under:
"The quantity of maximum daily effluent discharge should not be more than the following:
Effluent Discharge Details S. Kind of Maximum daily discharge Treatment No. Effluent KL/day facility and discharge point 1 Industrial 100 KLD (Treated through ETP ETP and again treated through 175 KLD ETP and recycled in the process to achieve ZLD) 2 Domestic 100 KLD (Treated and reused in STP flushing/gardening within the premises) 4a. The domestic effluent should be treated in treatment plant so that should be in conformity' with the following norms dated treated effluent.
Domestic Effluent S. No. Parameter Standard 1 Total Suspended Solids 100 mg/l 2 BOD 30 mg/l 3 COD 250 mg/l 4 Oil & Grease 10 mg/l 5 Quantity of Discharge 100 KLD (Treated through STP and reuse in flushing/gardening within the premises.
4b. The industrial effluent should be treated in treatment plant so that the treated effluent should be in conformity with the following norms.
Industrial Effluent
S. No. Parameter Standard
1 Total Suspended 100 mg/l
Solids
2 BOD 30 mg/l
3 COD 250 mg/l
4 Oil & Grease 10 mg/l
5 Quantity of Discharge 100 KLD (Treated through ETP and
again treated through 175 KLD and
treated effluent shall be recycled in the
process to achieve ZLD)
239
209. Condition no. 4 under the head Specific Conditions of the above consent letter says, "no effluent is allowed to discharge outside the factory premises". However, in the joint inspection report dated 07.05.2019 (inspection made on 08.03.2019), it was found that inside drains of industry was connected with kacha drain outside behind the factory which ultimately met kacha pond near village Ambedha. This was a clear violation of consent conditions as above. Regional Officer, UPPCB issued show cause notice dated 30.03.2019 (which was issued immediately after inspection and the findings recorded thereon) mentioning the above violation and requiring PP to explain. The notice dated 30.03.2019 makes the following allegation against PP:
(i) The untreated effluent from residential colony was being discharged in a pond through a kacha drain which was contrary to condition no. 3 of consent granted under Water Act 1974.
210. The record nowhere shows that on this aspect, PP submitted any reply within the time permitted by Regional Officer, UPPCB. The above violation continued in as much as in the joint inspection report dated 03.12.2019 (inspection made on 16.10.2019) in para 9 compliance status item no. 2 clearly mentions that the discharge of effluent from the premises was reaching kacha pond outside the premises and there was leakage found by Committee on 16.10.2019 and also in the periphery wall of residential colony, STP releasing effluent into kacha pond. PP ought to have dismantled its inside drain connecting industrial/domestic waste water to kacha pond but that was also not done. We have already reproduced this report earlier. Thus, the above violation continued even at the time of inspection made on 16.10.2019. Even in the inspection report dated 16.07.2019 (inspection made on 01.06.2019), in para 9, it is said that PP had two STPs of 60 KLD for treatment of domestic effluent in 240 industrial premises but for treatment of domestic effluent of residential colony/canteen of the unit, it was being directly discharged outside the premises in a kacha pond and for treatment thereof, a new STP of 60 KLD capacity was under construction. The report of 16.07.2019 has been heavily relied by PP but on this aspect except bare denial, nothing has been said. A finding recorded repeatedly in the physical inspections that too in the presence of the representatives of PP cannot be disbelieved on bare denial by PP without placing any material to show that the said findings are incorrect.
211. In the written submissions dated 10.08.2021, part B, para 21 and 22, PP has said that he opposed this finding and submitted letters dated 02.12.2019, 17.06.2020, 21.07.2020, 16.10.2020 and 05.11.2020 but received no response. This shows that the very first denial, if what is being stated by PP, is accepted, has come vide his letter dated 02.12.2019 though finding of the above violation was found in three inspections made on 28.03.2019, 01.06.2019 and 16.10.2019. Reason as to why when these findings were recorded and when show cause notice was issued to him on 30.03.2019 by Regional Officer, UPPCB, he did not give any reply, no explanation has come. Even if we assume that in December 2019 when PP wrote first letter on 02.12.2019, the above violation was rectified/removed, the fact remains that a clear violation of the consent conditions and the provisions of Water Act 1974 was found by the joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal in its inspection dated 28.03.2019 and despite pointing out of this violation in three consecutive reports, PP did not mend its ways and continued with the said violation at least till when he wrote first letter of denial on 02.12.2019. By that time he may have removed/rectified this violation, still the above violation stands proved and we are clearly of the view that it is not that this violation occurred for the first time only on 241 28.03.2019 when Committee made inspection but it was already there and has continued for sufficiently long time for which PP is liable to pay environmental compensation and to meet other consequential action in accordance with law.
B. Storage of hazardous waste not permitted under the authorisation issued under HWM Rules 2016:
212. In the inspection dated 28.03.2019, it was found that PP has stored in the premises some hazardous waste which was not authorised like empty containers of paints, lacquer, elector plating, chemicals, oil soaked cotton ragas, used oil etc. and thus has violated the HWM Rules 2016.
Pointing out this violation found in the inspection dated 28.03.2019, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2019 was issued to PP. The violation had continued as reported in the report dated 16.07.2019 (inspection dated 01.06.2019). In the inspection report dated 03.12.2019 (inspection dated 16.10.2019), it has been mentioned that PP obtained authorisation on 16.07.2019 under HWM Rules 2016. This fact had been admitted by PP in its written submissions dated 10.08.2021 part B para 28 to 30. The defence of PP that violation found in two inspections has subsequently been removed therefore, issue stands closed and nothing further is required to be done is thoroughly unacceptable in as much as for the past violation of environmental norms, violator is liable to pay environmental compensation and meet other legal consequences but cannot say that any subsequent removal/rectification of violation will condone earlier violations. The above facts show that the above violation had continued atleast upto 16.07.2019. Further it cannot be said that this violation has commenced only on 28.03.2019 when inspection was made pursuant to direction of this Tribunal but the said violation found on the date of inspection on 28.03.2019 show that the same was continuing from earlier point of time. It was for PP to show that there was some point of time when 242 he was complying and there is a shorter period of violation otherwise from the date of PP unit commenced, the violation can be taken to have continued. However, for Tribunal, the consequences and computation of compensation will not go beyond five years from the date this OA was filed. OA was registered on 21.02.2019 and, therefore, we will not go beyond 22.02.2014 in view of the limitation provided under Section 15(3) of NGT Act 2010.
C. Manufacturing of Thermocol blocks without having any consent to establish/consent to operate under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981:
213. In the inspection made on 28.03.2019, it was found that PP had gone with expansion/modification of the industrial premises and a thermocol block manufacturing unit was found operational though no consent to establish/operate was obtained for the same. Pointing out this violation, Regional Officer, UPPCB sent a show cause notice dated 30.03.2019. No reply was submitted by PP to the said show cause notice dated 30.03.2019. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 22.04.2019 computing compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the report dated 16.07.2019 (inspection dated 01.06.2019), it is said that after issue of notice dated 22.04.2019, PP closed production of thermocol slabs and submitted an application for grant of consent on 13.06.2019 so that the said production may recommence. PP's letter dated 02.05.2019 is also on record wherein he has referred to the show cause notice dated 22.04.2019 and said that it has closed thermocol plant till further order. Therefore, it was a serious violation, admitted by PP as shown vide letter dated 02.05.2019. If intervention of Tribunal would not have been there by directing inspection by joint Committee, the above violation would not have been noticed and PP may have continued with the above violation uninterrupted. This also shows collusion of authorities of UPPCB who may have been visiting the 243 premises while considering application of consent as also authorization but neither noted the above violation nor took any action and simply abated the above violation on the part of PP.
214. We have no hesitation in observing that officers of UPPCB are also irresponsible for such illegal act on the part of PP and action against erring officials should be taken by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. We, however, confine ourselves at this stage for appropriate action against PP and leave appropriate action against erring officials to the concerned authorities.
D. No STP for treatment of domestic effluent of residential colony of industrial unit:
215. In the inspection dated 28.03.2019, it was found that no STP was established for treatment of domestic effluent generated from residential colonies of industrial units and said effluent was discharged directly in a kacha pond through a kacha drain. In the show cause notice dated 30.03.2019, this violation was noticed. Again it remained unreplied by PP.
Record shows that it installed 120 KLD capacity STP and commissioned on 14.06.2019. This was also inadequate since domestic discharge was 175 KLD. Another 60KLD STP is said to have been installed later but fact remains that PP was violating consent condition of installation of STP since the date when consent was granted. Later compliance would not condone earlier violations and for that PP had to pay compensation and face other legal actions.
E. Presence of cyanide and other pollutants in the treated water of different divisions beyond permissible limits:
216. In the inspection made on 28.03.2019 (report whereof was submitted on 07.05.2019), ETP treated effluent samples from wood, metal 244 and glass divisions were taken and the following pollutants beyond permissible limits were found:-
COD BOD Cyanide Zinc
Wood Division 6200mg/l 1985mg/l 1.56mg/l -
(250mg/l as (30mg/l as (0.2mg/l as
per norms) per norms) per norms)
Metal Division - - 0.49mg/l -
(0.2mg/l as
per norms)
Glass Division - - - 7.28mg/l
(5.0mg/l as
per norms)
217. Based on the above inspection dated 28.03.2019, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2019 was issued mentioning the above violations but we find no denial on the part of PP by submitting any reply to the above show cause notice. The PP has tried to explain above violations by stating in para 20 of its written submissions dated 10.08.2021 part B that there appears to be some sampling errors since unit do not use cyanide at all.
It has not placed any test report of various raw materials and chemicals used in the premises for production/manufacturing process to show that those raw materials and chemicals etc. were tested after receiving from the supplier to find out whether they contain any impermissible elements or not and bare oral denial that too after a long time can neither be accepted nor otherwise show bona-fide on the part of PP in placing above defence. The above violations are based on the sample collected in the presence of representative of PP and based on scientific testing report. Hence in our view, the said violation remained uncontroverted.
218. PP, however, has relied upon on the report dated 16.07.2019 (inspection dated 01.06.2019). Therein, treated effluents samples were taken in different plants/processes and found within norms. The above report, we find is very sketchy. All the infirmities found in the inspection 245 dated 28.03.2019 were not taken into account; earlier inspection was made by a joint Committee comprising of very senior officials of CPCB and UPPCB including the two officers who claims to have inspected on 01.06.2019 but what impelled them to make inspection on 01.06.2019 when earlier report dated 07.05.2019 based on the inspection dated 28.03.2019 was yet to be considered by Tribunal, is not explained. No direction was issued by Tribunal for any further inspection still the said report was prepared and submitted. The report of 16.07.2019 shows that some instructions were issued by the headquarter of UPPCB but instead of sending the team comprising some senior officers as was done earlier pursuant to Tribunal's order, two junior officers were allowed to make this inspection and, therefore, the very purpose and intention of such inspection and report becomes seriously doubtful. This is also evident from Tribunal's order dated 29.08.2019, wherein it has referred to the findings recorded in the report dated 07.05.2019, directed concerned officials of UPPCB to make assessment of compensation to be recovered for the damages caused to the environment and also give a further updated status report. It shows that the report dated 16.07.2019 was not accepted by Tribunal and it relied only on the report dated 07.05.2019. Presence of cyanide has also been found in report dated 29.01.2021. As per consent condition cyanide should not have been present on the premises. It would have been hazardous to the employees also. Similarly other pollutants were found beyond permissible limits and no valid explanation is given.
219. Consent order dated 09.05.2018 shows that PP was allowed domestic effluent 100 KLD through sewage treatment plant of 5 kl/hr capacity and recycle for flushing/gardening. Condition no. 4 clearly said that "no effluent is allowed to discharge outside the factory premises". In the general conditions, para 4a, it was provided that the domestic effluent 246 should be treated in treatment plant so that it should be in conformity with the norms provided in the said consent order. Para 8 of the general conditions says, "the treated domestic and industrial effluent be mixed (as per the provisions of Condition No. 2) and disposed of on disposal point. This common effluent disposal point should have arrangement for flow meter/V Notch for measuring effluent and its log book be maintained". By discharge of untreated domestic effluent since no STP itself was installed for treatment of domestic effluent generated by residential colony and canteen etc. of the industry premises, PP was clearly violating conditions of consent and the provisions of Water Act 1974. In show cause notice, this violation was pointed out but remained un-responded by PP. The report dated 16.07.2019 which has been heavily relied by PP also shows that the STP of 60 KLD capacity was in the process of construction. Even 120 KLD capacity STP became operational from 14.06.2019 as stated in the report dated 03.12.2019 based on the inspection dated 16.10.2019. Thus, at least upto 03.12.2020 PP has been violating conditions of consent and provisions of Water Act 1974 with impunity by discharging untreated domestic effluent directly in a pond outside the premises connecting with the open drains laid by it. This discharge contaminated ground water as report of samples of hand pump and pond have shown. Thus PP caused damage and degradation to environment.
220. The effluent containing pollutants beyond permissible norms continued as we find from inspection report dated 03.12.2019 (inspection dated 16.10.2019). In wood division, effluent at the inlet of ETP was non- complying with BOD (3240mg/l) and NH3-N. In glass division, ETP outlet was found non-complying with regard to NO3-N, Cr, Fr, Ni, Sr and Zn. In ETP inlet COD was found 754 mg/l. It was also found that PP was not having secondary/biological treatment facility in ETP at wood division as 247 well as glass division. Still in the outlet, presence of BOD, TSS and pH etc. were found within norms. Committee took a view that there was a foul play on the part of PP in as much as in absence of secondary/biological treatment facility in ETP, BOD and COD contents would have not got reduced to such a large extent as was found in the inspection conducted dated 16.10.2019. STP outlet also was found non- complying in glass and metal division. Similarly, in STP effluent of glass division, the characteristics were not matching with an STP effluent. Therefore, Committee took the view that there must have been some mixing of industrial and domestic effluent and industrial effluent is being treated with industrial effluent. In the written submission dated 10.08.2021 part B from para 18 to 27, we find the stand of PP on these aspects and it says that in 2019 when first inspection was made on 28.03.2019 PP had installed three STPs and 3 ETPs at the different parts of the premises. PP responded for the first time vide letter dated 02.12.2019 followed by letters dated 17.06.2020, 21.07.2020, 16.10.2020 and 05.11.2020 sent to UPPCB and CPCB. It is not stated anywhere that secondary biological treatment facility was installed in any STP installed in the unit and similar facility at ETP installed at wood and glass division. The denial on the ground that since outlet norms were complied, the inlet effluent norms would not make any difference. Committee has clearly taken a view that in the absence of secondary/biological treatment reduction of BOD, COD etc. to the extent it was found from inlet to outlet was not possible and this shows a foul play of dilution of the effluent in some mysterious manner. This could not be explained by PP. In order to understand what the Committee wanted to say, it would be appropriate to have a brief idea of different types of treatments in the matter of ETP and STP.
248
221. System of effluent treatment: Broadly, ETP are of three categories i.e. Primarily, Secondary and Tertiary.
222. Untreated effluent or waste water is the water discharge after different uses/processes and contains waste and solids which are called contaminated material. Waste water comes from various places like residential houses, shops, farms, offices, restaurants, public toilets, other places of hospitality and industries and factories. Besides above, there are certain waste water coming from medical facilities, fuel and transport depot, vessels, quarries and mines. Normally waste water coming from kitchens, showers, toilets, baths, laundries in houses and offices is treated as domestic waste water and such waste water which comes from manufacturing plants, food processing industries etc. is called industrial waste water or industrial effluent. There is another kind of water which as such is not waste water but called storm water. It is waste water when it runs off various areas such as roofs, parks, gardens, roads, paths and gutters and flows into storm water drains, especially after rain. It can flow straight into our water bases untreated and normally is considered to be safe potable water if collected properly. For treatment of effluent/waste water, the types of treatment plants which normally are installed are Primary, Secondary and Territory.
223. Primary (mechanical) treatment is designed to remove gross, suspended and floating solids from raw sewage. It includes screening to trap solid objects and sedimentation by gravity to remove suspended solids. This level is sometimes referred to as "mechanical treatment", although chemicals are often used to accelerate the sedimentation process. Primary treatment can reduce BOD of incoming waste water by 20-30% and total suspended solids by 50-60%. Primary treatment is usually the first stage of waste water treatment. Many advanced waste 249 water treatment plants in industrialized countries started with primary treatment, and then added other treatment stages as waste water load grown, the need for treatment increased, and resources became available.
224. Secondary treatment removes dissolved organic matter that escapes primary treatment. This is achieved through various processes including biological process in which microbes consume the organic matter as food, and convert it to carbon dioxide, water, and energy for their own growth and reproduction. The biological process is then followed by additional settling tanks ('secondary sedimentation') to remove more suspended solids. About 85% of suspended solids and BOD can be removed by a well running plant with secondary treatment. Secondary treatment technologies include basic activated sludge process, variants of pond and constructed wetland systems, trickling filters and other forms of treatment which use biological activity to breakdown organic matter.
225. Tertiary treatment is simply additional treatment beyond secondary. Tertiary treatment can remove more percent of all the impurities from sewage. The related technology can be very expensive, requiring a high level of technical know-how and well trained treatment plant operators, a steady energy supply, and chemicals and specific equipment which may not be readily available. An example of a typical tertiary treatment process is the modification of a conventional secondary treatment plant to remove additional phosphorous and nitrogen.
226. The Tertiary treatment is refined secondary treatment to remove certain specific kinds of pollutants from the effluent.
227. Thus, Primary Treatment works on sedimentation where solid separates from the water through several different tanks while secondary 250 treatment uses aeration bio-filtration and the inter-action of waste throughout its process.
228. In other words, the main objective of secondary treatment is to remove most of refined suspended and dissolve degradable organic matter that remains after Primary Treatment so that the effluent may be rendered suitable for discharge. Conventional Secondary Treatment can reduce BOD to below 20 mg/l and suspended solids to below 30 mg/l which is normally acceptable and treated as per norms.
229. PP has nowhere stated that the above treatment facilities were existing or present at the time of inspection. If not installed, how highly polluted effluent in the inlet of ETP/STP resulted in reduction of pollutants to such extent which primary treatment could not have resulted, also could not be explained by him. A process of scientific treatment which can be done in scientific manner. If such process itself was not there, it was for the PP to explain as to how he could achieve prescribed norms despite of non-availability of particular facility which could have resulted in such consequences. That has also not been explained.
230. PP, in the reply had said that it has spent more than Rs. 5 crores, (as stated in the affidavit dated 30.11.2020) and since 2020 after complete overhauling of STP and ETP systems, is operating the unit and since then, there is no violation. That be so, the discharge of effluent of untreated/partially treated effluent industrial/domestic in violation of consent conditions and Water Act 1974 was clearly illegal and in terms of the defence of PP, at least up to November 2020, when additional affidavit has been filed and the systems were overhauled/changed, the said violations have continued.
251
231. We may mention here at that non-compliance with respect to the various pollutants/elements in treated effluent was also found in the inspection dated 10.12.2020 in respect whereof report dated 29.01.2021 was submitted. It is stated that the samples collected from treated water tank (which receives treated effluent from RO-permeates, MEE condensate and ATFD condensate) were contaminated with cyanide with ranges from 0.3 mg/l (RO-1-Permeate) to 5.0 mg/l (MEE condensate) and it shows, that there was usage of cyanide salt in the process by the unit. Cyanide was found in other points also as per the above report dated 29.01.2020. PP has said in his written objections dated 10.08.2021 that it was not using cyanide at all nor the raw material it was receiving, have cyanide contents as informed by the suppliers but beyond it, no testing report of raw material etc. has been placed before us or before any authorities to show that the contents of raw material, chemicals, etc. being used by PP in the different process did not have any cyanide salt.
232. In the objections PP has also submitted that the question of cyanide could not have been possible since PP has installed improvised system of ETP and STP. The improvised system was mentioned by PP in IA No. 273/2020 filed with request to recall order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Tribunal. It is said that PP has installed RO, UF, MEE and AFTD. Hence the question of cyanide continuing in the effluent does not arise.
233. On this aspect, we may observe that cyanide salt comes as a part of various chemical salts used by people like sodium cyanide, zinc cyanide, para cyanide etc. The process of PPs are such that possibility of cyanide salt cannot be ruled out and hence, this specific condition was made in consent order dated 09.05.2018 stating that cyanide plating or use of cyanide in the process is not allowed. This is condition no. 6 and we may reproduce the same as "Cyanide plating or use of cyanide in the process 252 not allowed". PP ought to have tested all his raw materials and chemicals used to find out whether the same have any cyanide contents or not so as to assure that no cyanide salt is being used by it but that was not done. A mere denial, in presence of scientific testing report which confirm cyanide, cannot be accepted. The defence that there may be some sampling error is nothing but an afterthought in as much as inspections were made in presence of representative of PP and samples were also collected but no objection was taken that there was some error in taking samples.
234. Cyanide is a rapidly acting potentially deadly chemical that can exist in various forms. Cyanide can be colourless gas such as hydrogen cyanide, or cyanogen chloride or a crystal form such as sodium cyanide or potassium cyanide, etc. The processes like ultrafiltration (hereinafter called as 'UF'), reverse osmosis (hereinafter called as 'RO'), multi-effect evaporation (hereinafter called as 'MEE') and Agitated Thin Film Evaporated (hereinafter called as 'ATFE') do not destroy or dissolve cyanide or change its nature but they simply segregate/separate concentrate cyanide from soluble or water contents but the reject would have concentrated cyanide.
235. Ultrafiltration is variety of membrane filtration in which forces like pressure or concentration gradients leads to a separation through a semi- permeable membrane. In terms of industrial waste water UF is a water purification process in which water is poured through a semi permeable membrane. Suspended solids and high molecular weight solutes remain on one side of the membrane, the retentate side, while water and low- molecular-weight solutes filter through the membrane to the permeate side. The pore size of ultrafiltration membranes ranges from 0.1 to 0.01 microns. It can extend the life of reverse-osmosis membranes in the treatment of high-silt density index (SDI) waters. They require lower 253 investment, deliver reduced operating costs, use no coagulants, and require little chemical use. UF devices are used to recycle and reuse water that contains virtually no physical substance. This process cannot dissolve cyanide in non-hazardous form but at the best can segregate.
236. Reverse Osmosis can be described as diffusion controlled process in which mass transfer of ions through RO membrane is controlled by diffusion. RO membrane is capable of rejecting contaminates as small as 0.001 micron. RO configuration includes single stage, two stages and two pass systems.
237. Multi effect-evaporation is a process used to concentrate a solution by removing the solvent (mainly water) in a purified form by the application of heat. Here, the evaporation is the unit operation by which solvent is evaporated from the solution by boiling the liquid in suitable vessel and withdrawing the vapour, leaving a concentrated liquid residue.
238. Agitated Thin Film Evaporator: This process comprises two major assemblies; (i) a jacketed small precision machine from inside (ii) a rotor assembly that revolves at high speeds while closely fitting the shell. Here, the feed enters the shell tangentially and spreads along the periphery through the distributor. The rotor blade tips slides with a close clearance with the wall and spread the feed uniformly on a heated surface into a thin film and then agitate it. The heating medium provides the necessary heat for evaporating the volatile component of the feed. The vapor transmits counter current to the film and gets cleared in the entrainment separator before being left through the vapor nozzle. The concentrated product leaves the evaporator bottom through the concentrator nozzle. ATFE systems are used for fluids which are difficult to handle due to higher sensitivity and viscosity particularly, in metal pollution, etc. 254
239. In none of these matters, cyanide can be treated but it can only be separated or get concentrated in the reject/sludge. The treatment of cyanide is normally done by two methods: (i) Chlorine treatment (ii) Electrolysis. Activated carbon is also known to be effective for the oxidation of cyanide. It acts both as an absorbent and as a catalyst for the oxidation of cyanide. Adsorption is a widely used technology for the removal and recovery of cyanide. The matter requires the splurging of the solution with air or oxygen. In regard to technology, we are not expressing any final opinion but our observations are only to show that no technology was installed at PP's premises to tackle with the problem of cyanide, if present, but whatever process were installed, at the best they could have separated cyanide from water leaving highly concentrated reject/sludge which has been found during inspection dated 10.12.2020 as per report dated 29.01.2021. It is a serious thing. Presence of cyanide in industrial premises is likely to cause injuries to the workers and can contaminate water and soil.
240. Disposal of sludge having concentrated cyanide contents is also required to be handled carefully and differently. PP was required to display nature of hazardous chemicals being handled in the plant including waste water etc. but with regard to cyanide PP did not make any such display. Condition no. 16 of authorisation letter dated 18.01.2016 is reproduced as under:
"16. You are directed to display on-line data/display board outside the main factory gate with regard to quantity and nature of hazardous chemicals being handled in the plant, including waste water and air emission and solid hazardous waste generated within the factory premises. Necessary compliance should be sent within 15 days of receipt of this letter."
241. Use of cyanide salt in the premises and an attempt to cover up this violation is a serious thing and has to be dealt with very sternly. It was a 255 violation of consent condition attracting statutory action including environmental compensation.
F. Non-installation of flow meters:
242. In all the inspection reports except report dated 30.07.2021, it has been found that PP has not installed electro-magnetic flow meters at different points which were necessary for regulation of the use of water/disposal of effluent etc. PP said that there was no such law but conditions of consent show that record of use of water and treatment of effluent has to be maintained and for this purpose at different points flow meters were necessary. PP was advised to do so from the very first inspection made on 28.03.2019 but only after almost more than two years, he installed all such meters. Non-installation of meters not only has hampered inspection teams from non-proper examination of use and treatment of water/effluent and other relevant aspects. This has given an opportunity to the proponent to take different stand from time to time in as much as when he was not authorised to draw fresh water for industrial usage, he tried to explain that he was getting water from outside agencies but could not prove it. Then PP said that he did not use any fresh water for industry but Tribunal taking into consideration different stands taken by PP, had to observe that PP is playing fraud as is evident from Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2020.
G. Higher capacity of boiler without consent:
243. Show cause notice dated 30.03.2019 mentioned that PP was permitted two boilers of 1 ton/hr and 2 ton/hr capacity but at the time of inspection, it was found to have established a 4 ton/hr capacity boiler and 2 ton/hr capacity boiler was kept as stand by. This was violation of the consent issued for use of the boiler under Section 21/22 of Air Act 1981. PP did not deny this fact and instead it has come on record that he later 256 on submitted an application for consent under Section 21/22 of Air Act 1981 for grant of consent for a 4 ton/hr capacity boiler by using fuel as wood and that was granted vide consent order dated 27.09.2019 effective from 28.08.2019 to 31.12.2019. It is thus evident that prior to 28.08.2019, applicant illegally was operating higher capacity boiler without having any consent under Air Act 1981 and violating the same. The defence of PP that the above violation at the best can be treated to be for the period of about 5 months i.e. from 28/30-03.2019 to 28-08.2019 cannot be accepted. PP could not show that it was not violating conditions of consent in respect of boiler even prior to 28.03.2019. No material has been placed on record. Therefore, we have no hesitation in recording the finding that PP was violating condition of consent in respect to use of boiler and defied provisions of Air Act 1981 since the date of installation of such boiler.. H. Non maintenance of logbooks/documents with regard to abstraction of water, use in different segments, sludge generation and disposal etc.:
244. Vide show cause notice dated 30.03.2019, PP was required to show cause as to why it could produce record of only 2 borewells though there were 6 borewells and about 4 borewells PP claimed that they were not in use. It must have record till the period the said borewells were used so as to verify the claim of PP since earlier also he was found violating the conditions with regard to borewells and compensation was imposed by Tribunal still PP chose not to seal extra 4 borewells and disconnect the same all together. In the notice dated 30.03.2019, it was clearly mentioned that there were 6 borewells in the unit of PP though as per NOC issued by CGWA only two borewells were permitted but with regard to remaining borewells, PP could not produce any document nor the same were dismantled nor disconnected. We find no reply submitted by PP to the said show cause notice, denying the above facts.257
245. In the report dated 16.07.2019 (inspection dated 01.06.2019), it is mentioned that 6 borewells were established in the premises while only 2 were allowed wherein mechanical type Kranti Make water flow meters were installed though as per NOC, electro-magnetic flow meters were directed to be installed. Report also says that 4 tubewells were found disconnected meaning thereby, at the time of inspection made on 01.06.2019, four tubewells which were earlier found neither disconnected nor dismantled, though disconnected now but not dismantled.
246. Maintenance of logbooks was necessary to regulate and monitor use of borewells as per NOC but appropriate record was not maintained by PP.
In the report dated 03.12.2019 (inspection dated 16.10.2019), it was mentioned that PP has not installed electro-magnetic flow meters on all the water supply systems as well as inlet and outlets of ETPs and STPs. It was maintaining logbook for flow meters reading only but not for daily sludge generation and hence, it was partially maintaining record/logbooks.
247. In defence PP has stated in the written submissions that there is no law for maintenance of such record at every stage yet it is a technical matter and PP in any case was complying substantially. The defence has no basis in as much as for regulation and monitoring of compliance of the conditions of consent, maintenance of record was necessary. Condition no. 8 (specific conditions of condition of consent) under Section 25/26 of Water Act 1974 says, "Electro-magnetic flow meter shall be installed at water source (Tube well) and outlet of ETP, Inlet and Outlet of STP, proper records shall be maintained of the water extracted from ground water and effluent reused in the process and used in the irrigation."
248. The above shows that from the point of generation of the water till its treatment and use not only electro-magnetic flow meters are to be 258 installed but record also has to be maintained. Similarly, condition no. 12 says, "Unit shall maintain the records of the waste sent to TSDF."
249. Thus, with regard to sludge also, the record has to be maintained. Besides condition no. 10 requires PP to comply with the provisions of Water Act 1974 and EP Act 1986 as also Tribunal's order dated 13.07.2017 in OA 200/2014, MC Mehta vs UoI & Ors.
250. Condition no. 11 requires PP to comply provisions of HWMTM Rules 2016 and regularly send hazardous waste generated from unit to TSDF for safe disposal. Even in the earlier consent order dated 20.10.2015 issued under Section 25/26 of Water Act 1974, similar conditions were mentioned at conditions no. 2 and 3, stating that at different points of water supply, flow meters shall be installed and reading shall be sent to PCB every month and for measurement of the daily generation of sludge etc. appropriate meters shall be installed for collaboration etc. Similarly, under the authorisation order issued under HWMTM Rules 2016, there are several conditions including that PP must comply with the provisions of HWMTM Rules 2016.
251. Rule 6(5) of HWMTM Rules 2016 requires every occupier to maintain record of hazardous waste managed by him of Form 3 and the said Rule reads as under:
"(5) Every occupier authorised under these rules, shall maintain a record of hazardous and other wastes managed by him in Form 3 and prepare and submit to the State Pollution Control Board, an annual return containing the details specified in Form 4 on or before the 30 th day of June following the financial year to which that return relates."
252. It requires information separately of the type of waste with category as per Schedule 1, 2 and 3. Schedule 1 contain list of processes generating hazardous waste, schedule 2 provide list of waste constituents with 259 concentration limits. The entire purpose is to ensure that there is compliance of the Rules and the provisions of law strictly since the matter relates to pollutants and hazardous waste which impact adversely the environment.
253. In the objection dated 10.07.2021 filed by e-mail dated 11.08.2021, PP has said that a unified logbook was maintained which was found by the inspection team in the last inspection conducted between 30.06.2021 to 02.07.2021 and as per report dated 14/30.07.2021. With regard to the non-maintenance of logbooks separately for STP sludge and ETP sludge, PP has not disputed this fact but says that there is no requirement in law but we have already said that nature of sludge has to be maintained, therefore, record for both was to be maintained separately. This was necessary to examine as to what sludge was coming from domestic effluent and whether it was within permissible limits and similarly what was coming from the industrial effluent i.e. ETP.
254. Ground water abstraction: This is one of the most important issue involved in this matter where we find a real jugglery on the part of PP. For evading liability, though illegality was committed, PP has gone to the extent of taking different stands at different times for the same incident and this compel Tribunal to make observation that PP is playing fraud as is evident from the order dated 06.08.2020. Tribunal observed that in obtaining NOC, PP has played fraud and made false statements. In fact, PP responded and reacted only thereafter and challenged said order in Civil Appeal no. (dairy no.) 23355/2020 before Supreme Court and simultaneously filed IA 273/2020 before Tribunal. Later, PP withdrew appeal with liberty to pursue IA filed before Tribunal and thereafter IA was considered on 03.12.2020 and rejected. Tribunal in the order dated 03.12.2020 has specifically referred to contradictory stand taken by PP 260 showing that he was extracting ground water illegally and not complying with the conditions of NOC etc. This order has become final.
255. Now we proceed to consider this aspect which is a serious violation of environmental laws in detail. But before considering the same in detail, we may refer to the objection taken by PP in its written submission dated 10.08.2021 part B para 8 to 15 wherein it has justified its action and tried to take a stand that the requirement of NOC became necessary only in 2006 for the first time and, thereafter, it has proceeded in accordance with the Guidelines dated 24.09.2020 and the provisions of UPGWMR Act 2019. We find it, therefore, necessary to consider relevant provisions and also the importance of ground water as to why this issue needs examination in detail.
GROUND WATER - CONCEPT - PAST AND PRESENT
256. It would be appropriate to have a glance on the concept of ground water since ancient times. Water is one of the five elements which constitute human body. It is needed for very sustenance of civilization. Interest of society, in general, and common man's need of water for drinking purposes, domestic uses etc., in particular cannot be doubted. In many areas, people find it difficult to get potable water, due to scarcity. Almost every second day we find crises of water, reported in media, in one or the other city. Simultaneously, there is commercial interest of individuals who contribute to the economy of the country and they require water for commercial purposes. The scarcity of water is well known. Search of solution of this problem is Global. Scarcity of water is being faced almost by all countries. Attempts have been made at different levels, including national and international, to take steps for making potable water available to the common man but simultaneously there cannot be a complete denial or prohibition for use of water in commercial and 261 industrial activities which is the backbone of development and economy. A balance has to be made but when situation comes in a given case, to select any one of them, obviously saving of life will have to be preferred. Life cannot be imagined without water (बिन पानी सि सन ू ):
257. No one can dispute the importance of water. It is essential for life on earth. It is available on the planet in all the three phases namely solid, liquid and gas. Water ties together, major parts of earth climatic system, in the form of air, clouds, ocean, lakes, vegetation, snowpack and glaciers. Conversion and reconversion of one form of water to any other, is commonly known as water cycle which shows continuous movement of water within earth and atmosphere. In the form of liquid and solid, it is available on earth, on the surface and beneath the surface. Snowpack and glaciers are solid forms on the surface while in liquid form, it is available in the running condition as oceans, rivers, streams, waterfalls etc. and sometimes as water body or wetland in the form of lakes, ponds and other wetlands. Inside/beneath the surface, it percolates the sand and rocks and is available as ground water. Existence of ground water is necessary and integral part of water cycle in as much as it contributes to the surface water which is involved in the process of conversion as vapour/cloud due to heat or in cold areas solidify as snow. In the areas where large quantity of water evaporates, and results in scarcity of water on the surface, it is ground water which helps to maintain surface water and also contributes to fill water in wells. Water influences intensity of climate variability and change. It is key part of extreme events like drought and floods. If surface water exceeds the limit of carrying capacity, it will flood the plains and if evaporation of surface water is very high and recharge is not as per the requirement, it may result in causing drought. Not only for human 262 sustenance, but, for every activity or in other words, in every walk of life, mankind needs water.
258. Water has its role as an intimate part of the human existence, as an individual, or, in group or society, for personal life or social life, for household needs or commercial or industrial needs, etc. Everywhere water is required. It is fundamental and basic need of life cycle, whether it is animal kingdom or plant kingdom. It is, therefore, extremely important that water resources are protected, both, for human uses and eco-system.
259. Our forefathers at a very early stage, had recognized importance of water and educated people to respect nature, giving it spiritual and religious stature. Mountains, rivers, waterfalls, streams, ponds, wells, trees etc., all were treated as divine objects, and worshipped. The idea was that the people would be obliged not only morally but socially and religiously to protect nature including water sources, resources and, practice its reasonable utilization. Unfortunately, in the last few centuries, above learnings and teachings, handed down to us, by our learned, wise and farsighted esteemed forefathers/ancestors, have been ignored under a misconception of a materialistic kind of development. We have compromised with water resources, exploited indiscreetly, misused gift of nature i.e., free availability of minerals, wood, clean air and water, in all possible manner. That is how rivers, streams, and water bodies are drying, ground water table is depleting, glaciers are melting and world is facing a severe crisis of water supplies. True, the developmental activities cannot be made solely responsible in as much as population explosion, our negligence towards environmental pollution, etc. are some other root causes which have also contributed to this problem. 263
260. Sometimes, it is said that scientifically, water is never lost but only changes form, therefore, alleged crisis is artificial and a hollow cry. But this is not true. When we consider in the context of need of water for human activities, it is true that earth water is always in movement and there is a natural water cycle known as hydrologic cycle. There is continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface of the earth. But the cardinal fact is, if water, available on surface and under the surface, is used in an unplanned manner, irrespective of the quantum of water available at a particular place, there will be a scarcity and this will reflect not only on the hydrologic cycle but adversely affect water availability at other places also. If surface water for one or the other reason, goes down, recharge of ground water will also get reduced and it will create scarcity of ground water, reflect when it is sought to be extracted through wells and this will ultimately reflect upon the quantum of surface water also.
261. Water is important for the very sustenance, not only for Homo Sapiens but the entire animal kingdom. With water regime, civilizations have developed and disappeared. Interestingly, everybody knows that mankind cannot survive without fresh, healthy and sustained air, water and clean atmosphere, still ground level efforts for its protection are not so serious. Globally, though every country talks seriously about environment and its protection, shows concern about its depletion, but in practice, their action is not true to the words spoken in global meetings. Developed countries find themselves free to damage environment in the manner they like but blame underdeveloped or developing countries and so is the reverse. The developing and underdeveloped countries lack resources to take care and leave climate at its fate, and making it free to its inhabitants to use and consume natural resources in whatever manner 264 they like. Extensive exploitation of water, either unregulated or with superficial or shallow regulation becomes destiny of water.
262. So far as India is concerned, historically, environment has been given a very pious place and regard, since pre-vedic as well as vedic era.
"Water", since pre-vedic era, has been recognized as a spiritual symbol.
Rigveda identifies "water" as the first residence or ayana of nara, the Eternal Being. Therefore, water is said to be pratishtha, the underlying principle, or the very foundation of this universe. In Sataptha, it is said:
"Water may pour from the heaven or run along the channels dug out by men; or flow clear and pure having the Ocean as their goal...In the midst of the Waters is moving the Lord, surveying men's truth and men's lies. How sweet are the Waters, crystal clear and cleansing...From whom... all the Deities drink exhilarating strength, into whom the Universal Lord has entered..".
263. Early Vedic texts also identify "water" as a manifestation of the feminine principle, commonly as Sakti. Rigveda said:
"I call the Waters, Goddesses, wherein our cattle quench their thirst; Oblations to the streams be given...".
264. It is said that the primordial cosmic man or Purusa was born of the Water. Later Vedic texts identify that, "Water is female.." (Satapatha). Philosophically, vedas bestows a sacred character on water, identified therein, a medium to attain spiritual enlightenment. Vedas identify water as the very essence of spiritual sacrifice, or as stated in Atharvaveda "the first door to attain the divine order". The use of water in daily life as well as in ritualistic ceremony was referred to as spiritual sacrifice, a process of attaining eternity. Rigveda said:
"...Whatever sin is found in me, whatever wrong I may have done, if I have lied or falsely sworn, Waters remove it far from me...".265
265. Besides, philosophical and spiritual status given to environment including water, in ancient vedic scriptures, even on the issue of hydrology, we find a lot of material in vedic literature showing that since ancient time science of water was well developed in ancient India. Certain concepts of modern hydrology, we find, scattered, in various verses of Vedas, Puranas, Meghmala, Mayurchitraka, Vrhat Sanhita and other ancient scriptures. Our forefathers in Vedic age, had developed the concept that water gets divided into minute particles due to the effect of sun rays and wind. In Puranas, at various places, it is alluded that water cannot be created or destroyed, and that, only its state is changed through various phases of hydrological cycle. Evaporation, condensation, cloud formation, precipitation and its measurements were well understood in ancient India as we find from the study of Vedic and Puranic scriptures. During the time of Kautilya, contrivances to measure rainfall were developed which had the same principle as that of modern hydrology, except that weight measures were adopted instead of modern linear measurement of rainfall.
266. Indians, in ancient times, had well developed concepts of groundwater occurrence, distribution and utilization. Ancient literature also reveals that hydrologic indicators such as physiographic features, termite mounds, soils, flora, fauna, rocks and minerals were used to detect presence of groundwater. In Vrhat Sanhita, chapter 54, we find a detailed description of variation in the height of water table with place, hot and cold springs, ground water utilization by means of wells, construction methods of well and requisite equipments. Chapter 54 of Vrhat Sanhita is named as 'Dakargala'. As early as 550 A.D., Varamihira presented a simple method for obtaining potable water from a contaminated source of water. Efficient water use, lining of canals, construction of dams, tanks, essential requirements for the construction of good tanks, bank protection methods, 266 spillways and other minor aspects were given due consideration in ancient times in India.
267. "National Institute of Hydrology", (Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation) (hereinafter referred to as 'MOWRRD&GR'), Jal Vigyan Bhawan, Roorkee, in a work, published in December 2018, has recognized that knowledge of hydrology was permissive in ancient India starting from pre and dusk valley civilization days and has been discussed in depth in Vedas, Puranas, Arthashastra, Astadhyayi, Brihat Samhita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Meghamala, Mayurchitraka, Jainist and Buddhist and many other ancient literature. In the aforesaid work of MOWRRD&GR, ground water is the subject of discussion in chapter 6. It is stated that in Rigveda, Samveda and Yajurveda, concept of hydrological cycle and water use through wells etc. was present which clearly imply use of ground water in chapter 54 of Vrhat Sanhita. Its author Varahamihira (AD 505-587) has dealt with ground water exploration and extraction with various surface features that are used as hydrologic indicators to look at sources from ground water at different depths in well, from 2.29 meters to 171.45 meters. In verses 54.1 and 54.61-62, chapter 54 of Vrhat Sanhita, two technical terms shira and shiravigyan have been used. The term shira implies arteries of water or streams. Shiravigyan exactly conveys the meaning of water table. Verse 54.2 says that the water which falls from the sky, originally, has the same colour and same taste, but assumes different colour and taste after coming down on the surface of the earth and after percolation. In a very scientific manner, ground water and its explanation were dealt with, keeping in mind the preservation of water and its availability for all times to come, without getting it polluted or contaminated by any external means or operations. 267
268. The science of water in India is ancient but unfortunately forgotten in the last few centuries. Indian sub-continent, was invaded and ruled by people from other areas having different concepts, convictions and religious culture. The ancient scientific knowledge went in dormancy. The invaders treated inhabitants in a very crude manner, did not hesitate in destroying treasure of knowledge given in this sub-continent by great Saints and Rishis, and compelled common folk to believe that their cultural wealth was a myth. Huge collection of research and knowledge stored in educational institutes of repute were set on fire or damaged otherwise. Volumes of ancient knowledge treasure was also taken away by later invaders and rulers. The resultant subsequent unscientific, unmindful and irrational massive excavation, extraction and consumption, not only of surface water, but ground water, in the name of development of civilization, has created a situation where in some parts of country, even drinking water is not available or has become a serious scarcity.
269. Availability of water in all the areas is not uniform, whether it is surface water or ground water. Water covers about 71% of the earth surface. It comes to about 333 million cubic miles on the planet. In a U.S. Geological Survey's Water Science School, taking data source from Igor Shiklomanov's chapter "World freshwater resources" in Peter H. Gleick (editor), 1992, availability of earth water has been shown in three parts:
i.) For total global water available, 96.5% is in oceans, 0.9% is other saline water and only 2.5% is fresh water.
ii.) For 2.5% fresh water available, further division is that 68.7% thereof is in the form of glaciers and ice caps, 30.1% is ground water and only 1.2% is surface or other fresh water.268
iii.) For 1.2% surface/other fresh water available, again it is in different forms, i.e. 69.0% as ground ice and permafrost, 20.9% lakes, 3.8% soil moisture, 2.6% swamps and marshes, 0.49% rivers, 0.26% living things and 3% in atmosphere.
270. In other words, as a rough estimate, out of total water supply of about 333 million cubic miles (1386 million km3), more than 97% is saline. Only a small percentage, i.e., 2.5% fresh water is available. There against also, substantial part, i.e., 68% is locked up in ice and glaciers. A very small amount is available as surface water for human uses, i.e. 1.2%, which comes around 22300 cubic miles (93100 km3) which is about 0.007% of total water available on earth. These figures should not surprise us. Despite a very small fragment of water, available on surface, is consumable by human being, yet rivers are source of most of the water, the people use.
271. The quantum of ground water, comparing to the surface water, is definitely much more. However, comparing with global availability of water, it is a very small fraction thereof.
LAW ON USE OF GROUND WATER
272. In past, there was no control, regulation or supervision in respect of extraction of ground water. On the contrary, a recognition of owner's right to use ground water, we find in Section 7 of Indian Easement Act 1882 wherein Illustration (g) provides that land owners have the right to collect and dispose of all water under the land within their own limits. Availability of water vis a vis population and activities, was enough. Hence owners right on water was given recognition without any restriction or regulation. Habitation was village centric. It is 20th century urbanization which made 269 drastic change in the life of common man creating various scarcities, most important whereof, is water including ground water.
273. In India, we had a persistent problem of acute and severe drought as also floods in various parts of the country, if not every year, then quite frequently. Some States are such which experience problem of flood and drought almost every year. A gigantic growth of infrastructure and industrial development in various forms also substantially consumed, not only surface water but also ground water. Almost at the end of 20th century, it was realized that a systematic water regime is the only option to protect human race, existence whereof was imperilled, and in furtherance thereof, Government of India, though reluctantly, attempted to create common awareness. It sought cooperation of all the States when it prepared Model Bill 1970 and circulated to all the States with request for adoption. It did not result into immediate positive response though subsequent amendments and re-circulations were made in 1992, 1996 and 2005. However, some Provincial Governments responded by making Provincial enactments for regulation of ground water. These enactments may have the objective of regulation of ground water so as to protect and preserve water table but in effect the provisions showed identification of areas where ground water level was depleted, declaration of such hard areas as notified area, and thereafter, bringing in, the concept of permission, from a Ground Water Authority, allowed very leniently, without any scientific study, impact assessment, carrying capacity etc. It was like importing the idea of license-raj, in the field of consumption of water, in notified areas. The provisions necessary for recharge, restoration and replenishment and its effective monitoring to ensure that it is actually done, were lacking.
270
274. International community ultimately, more particularly in the last about fifty years, realized danger of scarcity of water, so much so, sometimes it is said that third world war will be fought for water. Consequently, some steps were sought to be taken to mitigate, restore and rejuvenate but positive effect is still a mirage.
275. In the context of environment, it has been held from time to time that a clean and healthy environment is part of Fundamental Right of life, conferred by Article 21 of Constitution. In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar (1991)1SCC598, Supreme Court said:
"the right to live includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life."
276. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2000)10SCC664, Court said:
" Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right to life and right to live with human dignity. The right to clean environment and further, pollution free water has been protected under the broad rubric of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21".
277. Reference is also made to Article 48A, inserted in Part 4, (Directive Principle of State Policy) by 42nd amendment of Constitution, w.e.f. 03.01.1977, which reads as under:
"48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country."
278. Further, Part 4A, comprises of Article 51A, was also inserted in the Constitution by 42nd amendment w.e.f. 03.01.1977 and reads as under:
"51A. Fundamental duties: It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;271
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement."
279. Concern about pollution of rivers and streams, render water unsuitable for supporting aquatic and surface life, causing damage to irrigation/agriculture, untreated discharge of domestic and industrial effluents in rivers etc., were certain issues which drew attention of Government India resulting in constitution of a Committee in 1962 to prepare a draft enactment for Prevention of water pollution. The report submitted by Committee was forwarded to various State Governments. It was also considered by Central Council of local self-Government in September 1963. Council resolved that a comprehensive law dealing with the issue of water pollution and control, at Central and State level, may be enacted by Central legislature. Since subject matter of legislation was relatable to entry 17 list 2 of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, Parliament lacked legislative competence to make law on the subject (except as provided in Article 249 and 250 of the Constitution), i.e., unless legislatures of 2 or more States pass resolution in pursuance of subject. Consequently, Provincial legislatures of Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, 272 Kerala, Haryana and Mysore passed such resolution. Thereafter, Bill of Water Act 1974 was prepared and passed by Parliament. It was also passed under 252(1) of the Constitution by Provincial legislatures of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal. Ultimately, Water Act 1974 came into force on 23-03-1974.
280. At the first instance, it was made applicable to States which had passed resolution under Article 252 (1) adopting the said Act. Section 1 sub-section 3 said that it shall come into force at once in those States. Further it shall apply to the States which would adopt the said Act from the date of such adoption.
281. In the meantime, conference on human environment was held in Stockholm in June 1972 at the instance of United Nations in which India also participated.
282. In 1972 in Stockholm Convention, world leaders, showed global concern with respect of depleting environment and endeavoured to protect and preserve it by taking appropriate steps. Decisions were taken therein to take appropriate steps for preservation of natural resources. In furtherance to the said decision and in order to give effect to the International resolution passed at United Nations, Central Legislature enacted Air Act, 1981 which came into force on 16.05.1981.
283. Subsequently, it was realized that the existing laws focused on specific types of pollution or on specific categories of hazardous substance and major areas of environmental hazards are not covered. There were several aspects untouched and several gaps, needing a comprehensive statute, for protection and improvement of environment and matters 273 connected therein. It resulted in enactment of EP Act 1986 which came into force on 19.11.1986.
284. In fact, Stockholm declaration caused amendment of Constitution and insertion of Article 48A in Fundamental duties chapter and also part of fundamental duties. The concept was that it is fundamental human right to live in an unpolluted environment and it is fundamental duty of every individual to maintain purity of environment. The issue of environment assumed such an importance that Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India A.I.R.1992S.C.382, directed University Grants Commission to prescribe a course on environment.
285. Since Statues for protection of environment were enacted to implement decision reached at Stockholm conference, the same are referable, to Article 253, to confer legislative competence upon Central Legislature, irrespective of subject in the list of legislation, under Schedule
7. Article 253 reads as under:
"253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body."
286. An enactment referable to Article 253 is further referable to entry 13 List 1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution, which says:
"13. Participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat."
287. Further, there was no specific penal legislation dealing with the matter of environment in India. In Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), Section 268, defined "Public Nuisance" and abatement of public nuisance was covered by Sections 133 to 144 I.P.C. Section 269 to 278 I.P.C. made provisions which means that a person 274 guilty or violating any of the above provisions would be liable to prosecution and punishment.
288. University Grants Commission (India) in February 1997, launched its symposium on development of environmental studies in Indian universities. This symposium was organized in collaboration with some other organizations. The consensus arrived in this symposium was that ecology and environmental issues should form part of the courses of study at all levels. Government of India however treated environmental violations with more seriousness and in 2012, brought amendment in Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA 2002') by incorporating environmental laws i.e., Biological Diversity Act, 2002; Water Act 1974; Air Act 1981 and EP Act 1986 in Part A of the Schedule of PMLA 2002.
Provincial Enactments for Regulation of Ground Water:
289. Earlier the only available legislation was Indian Easement Act, 1882 which conferred certain rights upon the owner of a property to use water (groundwater) with ownership rights. There was no regulation governing abstraction of ground water. Government of India prepared a Model Bill in 1970 for ground water regulation and circulated to States for adoption. This version was revised in 1992, 1996 and 2005 but there was no substantial progress.
290. With the awareness of protection of environment, and international resolutions passed in United Nations, three enactments were made in India, Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and EP Act, 1986 but specifically, problem of exploitation of groundwater was not dealt with. Lead was taken by some State Legislatures, and in brief, we refer to these Provincial 275 enactments, to complete our stock of Statutory Provisions, available in India, to regulate ground water.
a) Andhra Pradesh:
(i) The Andhra Pradesh Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1996 received assent of Governor on 05.02.1996. Section 1(3) provided that "it shall come into force on such date and in such local area of the State as the State Government may, by notification appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different local areas".
(ii) The terms 'Ground Water' and 'Over-exploited Watershed' are defined in Section 2(4) and (6) as under:
"(4) 'ground water' means water existing in an aquifer below the surface of the found at any particular location of the local area regardless of the geological structure in which it is stationary or moving and include all ground water reservoirs;
(6) 'Over exploited watershed' means a watershed where the estimated annual ground water extraction is more than eighty five percent of the estimated average annual ground water recharge, calculated in the prescribed manner, and declared as such under section 6;"
The term 'water scarcity area' is defined in Section 2(12) and "watershed" is also defined in Section 2(13) as under:
"(12) 'water scarcity area' means an area declared as such by the Appropriate Authority under section 4;
(13) 'watershed' means an area confined within the topographic water divide line, as identified and notified by the Ground Water Department from time to time having regard to the purposes of this Act;"
(iii) Section 3 imposes restriction upon sinking of any well for any purpose, in the vicinity of a public drinking water source within a distance of two hundred meters if it is a source with Hand Pump or open well, and within a distance of two hundred and fifty meters if the source is used with a Power-Driven Pump. Sub Section 2 directs that any person, so desiring, will have to seek permission of the appropriate authority in such manner and on payment of 276 such fee as may be prescribed. Section 4 confers power upon appropriate authority on the advice of Technical Officer, having regard to the quantum and pattern of rainfall and any other relevant factor, to declare water scarcity area, if he is of the view that public drinking water sources in any area of the district are likely to be affected adversely. Such declaration would be for a period not exceeding one year at a time. Sub-section 2 of Section 4 empowers appropriate authority to regulate extraction of water from any well by restricting or prohibiting extraction in the area declared as "water scarcity area" under Sub-section (1). Sub- section (5), empowers appropriate authority to declare a watershed as over- exploited watershed on the advice of Technical Officer. When an "over-exploited watershed" is declared, Sub-section (2) imposes restriction upon any person for sinking well within the said area without permission of appropriate authority. Sub-section (6) empowers appropriate authority to prohibit extraction of water from existing well in the area of over exploited watershed, if found to be adversely affecting any public drinking water source, having regard to the quantum and pattern of rainfall and other relevant factors. The provisions for penalty and compensation are also made therein and procedure for passing orders adverse to any person giving remedy of an appeal are also provided.
b) Bihar
(i) Bihar Groundwater (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2006: The Act was published in Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 29.01.2007. Section 1(3) stated that it shall come into force on such date as the State Government may appoint by notification in the Official Gazette. Here definitions of 277 "Artificial Recharge to Ground Water" and "Ground Water" are given in Section 2(b) and (f) as under:
"(b) "Artificial Recharge to Ground Water" means the process by which ground water reservoir is augmented at a rate exceeding that under natural condition of replenishment.
(f) "Ground Water" means the water which exists below the ground surface in the zone of saturation and can be extracted through wells or any other means or emerges as springs and base flows in streams and rivers."
(ii) It provided for establishment of an Authority, namely Bihar State Ground Water Authority, by State Government, by publication of a Notification in an Official Gazette. Section 3 contemplates an advice from the Authority after consulting expert bodies including CGWA, if it is necessary, to control and regulate extraction or use of ground water in any form in any area, to the State Government, to declare such area to be notified area for the purpose of aforesaid Act. When an area is notified then for extraction and use of ground water, a permit would be necessary, as provided under Section 6.
c) In National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Environment, has issued an order dated 18.05.2010, purported to be a direction under Section 5 of EP Act, 1986 observing that continued extraction of ground water has led to severe depletion of ground water resources; has serious long term environmental implications and over extraction of ground water may result in drying up of ground water resources which may also affect water quality. CGWA by Notification in March, 2006 notified East New Delhi, North-East, North-West and West District of Delhi as "Over-exploited" areas, needing regulation and restriction of ground water extraction structures in those districts, mandatory. The directions issued by Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi say that in the whole of NCT of Delhi, no one shall draw ground water through bore well/tube well (new as well as existing) 278 for domestic, commercial, agricultural and/or industrial uses without prior permission of the Competent Authority, i.e., Delhi Jal Board (DJB) or New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), as the case may be. Then, procedure for regulation of the above directions is given. Detailed Guidelines as to the factors to be considered for grant of prior permission, we find, are not mentioned in the said directions except that in certain cases, requirement is that the provisions for Rain Water Harvesting System shall be made.
d) Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002: Here also the concept of declaration of Scheduled area having regard to the potential of availability of ground water and other relevant factors, has been propounded and restriction on existing well or new wells in the Scheduled area is provided.
e) Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 (Act 19 of 2002): Enacted for conservation of ground water and regulation of its extraction. Here also is a provision for constitution of State Ground Water Authority and declaration of an area as "Notified area" where Government is satisfied that it is in public interest to regulate extraction of use of ground water in that area. In the "Notified area", any person desiring to use ground water, will have to seek a permit from the appropriate Authority.
f) Karnataka Ground water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011: In State of Karnataka, pursuant to Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources's circulation of a Model Bill for regulation and control of development and management of ground water in 1992 and 1996, initially, Karnataka Ground Water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999, 279 (Karnataka Act 44 of 2003) was passed in 2003. It was substituted by Act, 2011 to control indiscriminate exploitation of ground water, especially in "Notified areas" in the State. Above Act received accent of Governor on 05.04.2011.
g) Lakshadweep Ground Water (Development and Control) Regulation, 2001, published in Lakshadweep Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 14.09.2001, made for regulation of ground water. It contemplated a Ground Water Authority and declaration of any island as a "Notified Island" to control and regulate extraction or use of ground water.
h) Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 03.12.2013, was enacted to ensure and protect drinking water resources and regulate exploitation of ground water in State of Maharashtra. It contemplates constitution of Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority and empower State Government, on the recommendation of the authority, to declare any area as "Notified area" where it finds, in public interest, to regulate extraction or use of ground water in a watershed or aquifer area.
i) Pondicherry Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 (Act No. 2 of 2013) was enacted to regulate and control development of ground water and for matters connected therewith.
j) Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws and the Chennai Metropolitan Area Groundwater (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2014 (Act No. 23 of 2014), was enacted to make amendment in Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, inserting provisions for permit for sinking any well in any area of third grade municipality, town panchayat or municipality etc. It also makes similar amendments in some Metro 280 Cities enactments namely, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 and Chennai Metropolitan Area Groundwater (Regulation) Act, 1987.
k) The West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management, Control and Regulation) Act, 2005 (Act XVIII of 2005), published in Kolkata Gazette, (Extraordinary), dated 31.08.2005, to manage, control and regulate indiscriminate extraction of ground water. It contemplates a State Level Authority, i.e., West Bengal State Level Groundwater Resources Development Authority, an Authority at District level as well as Corporation level. The powers and duties of the Authority are given in different provisions, and basically, they have to take into consideration various aspects of managing groundwater resources in West Bengal, its Districts and Corporations.
l) Besides above, following enactments are also operating for control and regulation of ground water:
(i) Assam Ground Water Control and Regulation Act, 2012.
(ii) Gujarat Irrigation and Drainage Act, 2013.
(iii) Himachal Pradesh Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2005.
(iv) Madhya Pradesh Peya Jal Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1986.
(v) Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, 2009.
(vi) Rajasthan Soil and Water Conservation Act, 1964.
(vii) Uttarakhand Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2016.
(viii) In Jammu and Kashmir, it is Water Resources (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2010.
(ix) Union Territory of Chandigarh Water Supply Byelaws, 2011 (Amendment 2018).281
(x) Haryana Water Resources (Conservation, Regulation and Management) Authority Act, 2020 published in the Gazette of Haryana dated 07.12.2020 (Extraordinary).
m) Uttar Pradesh:
i. Lastly, we come to UPGWMR Act 2019, which was published in UP Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 07.08.2019. It has come into force on w.e.f. 02.10.2019 vide Notification dated 11.09.2019 issued under Section 1(3) of UPGWMR Act 2019. The terms 'Aquifer', 'Bulk user', 'Commercial user', 'Ground Water', 'Infrastructural User', 'Notified area', 'Pollution', 'Rainwater harvesting' and 'Urban Area' are defined in Sections 2(b), 2(e), 2(g), 2(q), 2(s), 2(u), 2(w), 2(x) and 2(aa) as under:
"(b) 'Aquifer' means an underground layer of geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation, comprising fractured rocks, sand, gravel and like sediments, that is sufficiently porous, permeable and saturated with water and that transmits/accepts and yields significant quantity of water to a well or spring;
(e) 'Bulk User' means a person or a group of persons including any establishment such as hotels/lodges/private residential buildings /housing colonies/resorts/private hospitals/nursing homes/ business complexes/malls/ water parks, which extract and use ground water for the purpose of his or her or their operational water needs;
(g) 'Commercial user' means a person or a group of persons including any institution or any agency or any establishment who or which extract and use ground water for the purpose which directly or indirectly benefits his/her or their business or trade to make financial gain or profit;
(q) 'Ground Water' means the water occurring in its natural state below the ground surface in the zone of saturation and that can be extracted through wells or any other means or emerges as springs and base flows in streams and rivers;
(s) 'Infrastructural User' means a person era group of persons including a firm or any company, who or which extract and use ground water for the-purpose of carrying out such activities projects which are directly related to infrastructural development;282
(u) 'Notified area' means the area notified as such under section 9 which includes Over-exploited, Critical blocks and Stressed Urban Areas;
(w) 'Pollution' means such contamination of ground water or surface water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage, Plastic, Thermocol or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous, or solid substance into ground water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such ground water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other: legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms;
(x) 'Rainwater harvesting' means the technique or system of collection and storage of rainwater, at micro watershed scale, including roof-top harvesting, for storage or for recharge of groundwater;
(aa) 'Urban Areas' means the areas notified by a development authority or a municipality or a regulatory body as the case may be, excluding such areas/lands as are classified for agriculture use in the master plan of a development authority or a municipality or a regulated area;"
ii. Further, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of UPGWMR Act 2019, UP State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSGWMRA') was constituted vide Notification dated 13.11.20119, published in UP Gazette (Extraordinary), of the same date. By another Notification dated 02.01.2020, published in UP Gazette (Extraordinary) of the same date, Governor in exercise of powers under Section 6(1) of UPGWMR Act 2019 directed UPSGWMRA to constitute District Ground Water Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DGWMC') for each district of the State, consisting of Chairman and Members, in accordance with provisions of the said Section. Thereafter, by Notification dated 25.05.2020, published in UP Gazette (Extraordinary), of the same date, in exercise of powers under Section 49, State framed "UP Ground Water (Management and Regulation) Rules, 2020" (hereinafter referred to as 'UPGWMR Rules 2020'). In exercise of powers under Section 9(1) of UPGW 283 Act, 2019, Notification dated 17.06.2020 was published, notifying rural and urban areas of State of UP, mentioned in the schedule, as 'Notified area' for taking up appropriate measure for overall management and regulation of ground water w.e.f. 02.10.2020. The rural areas of UP, in respect of Amroha included Blocks- Dhanora, Gajraula, Hasanpur, and Joya. Vide Notification dated 03.07.2020, published in UP Gazette (Extraordinary), of the same date, Governor, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of UPGWMR Act 2019, directed DGWMC to constitute Gram Panchayat Ground Water Sub Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'GPGWSC') for each Gram Panchayat for each District. iii. Under the scheme of UPGWMR Act 2019, Section 3 contemplates constitution of a GPGWSC in every Gram Panchayat, being the lowest public unit in rural areas, within a block, to protect and manage ground water resources under UPGWMR Act 2019. Its functions include collection of information from all resources; prepare GPGW security plan and carryout such other functions as may be prescribed.
iv. In Urban areas, Section 5 of UPGWMR Act 2019, contemplates constitution of a Municipal Water Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as "MWMC"), for managing water in an integrated manner. Its functions include work in coordination with water related institutions within the respective municipality; to determine the sources of water supply (surface water and ground water) and integrate them; to prepare an overall municipal ground water security plan; register all the wells within notified and non-notified areas other than those of existing commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk users; to monitor 284 implementation of municipal ground water security plan and to carry out such other functions as may be prescribed. v. Section 6 of UPGWMR Act 2019, contemplates constitution of a DGWMC being an overall unit for management of ground water resources at district level. Its function includes consolidation of Block Panchayat and Municipal Ground Water Security Plan into District Level Ground Water Security Plan, based on macro watershed approach and as per guidelines prescribed, implementation of District Ground Water Security Plan; monitor, implementation of District Ground Water Security Plan; conduct water awareness programs; register all existing commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk users in notified and non- notified areas and grant authorization certificate/NOC for ground water abstraction in non-notified areas and registration of drilling agencies; carry out such other functions, as may be prescribed or assigned by UPSWMRA and to coordinate with WPGW Sub- Committee, Block Panchayat Ground Water Management Committee and Municipal Water Management Committee as well as SGWMRA. Section 7 empowers State Government to constitute UPSGWMRA, which was constituted by Notification dated 13.11.2019.
vi. Chapter III comprises of a single Section, i.e., Section 8 and lays down duties of Ground Water Department. It says that Department shall develop a mechanism to coordinate with the appropriate body namely, MGWMC and BPGWMC for rural areas and DGWMC for urban areas. They shall work as Technical Secretariat for SGWMRA. Sub-section (3) requires Ground Water Department to identify and delineate the areas, such as over- exploited and critical blocks, categorized as per latest Ground 285 Water Resource Estimation, carried out by Ground Water Department and CGWB, in consultation with SGWMRA. It shall also identify and delineate stressed Municipal/Urban areas (where decline of ground water levels is significant, i.e., more than 20cm/year, recorded during the last five years), for taking up appropriate measures for overall management and regulation of ground water in such areas. The areas so identified, shall be designated as 'Notified areas' for the purpose of regulation through Notification.
vii. Section 9 contemplates identification and delineation of 'Notified areas' for management and regulation of ground water resources and read as under:
"9. (1) Where the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority, after consultation with appropriate authorities (based on inputs from the Ground Water Department) is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to manage and regulate ground water for various purposes in any form in any area and to enforce rain water harvesting/ground water recharge and to implement various appropriate water conservation/water saving/water efficient practices mover-exploited/critical blocks and stressed urban areas (as identified and delineated by the Ground Water Department) where ground water levels have depleted to critical or alarming levels, it shall advise the State Government in such manner as may be prescribed to declare by notification such areas as Notified Areas for the purposes of this Act with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification :
Provided that-
(a) the date specified in the notification under this sub-section shall not be earlier than three months from the date of publication of the notification;
(b) every notification in Hindi as well as in English languages under this section shall, in addition to its publication in the Gazette, be published in not less than three daily regional newspapers Waving wide circulation in that region and also be served in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The Procedure for Demarcation and issuance of notification of the areas referred in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.286
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall be reviewed periodically under the new Ground Water Assessment Report and according to the findings of the report, shall be in such manner as may be prescribed."
viii. Section 10 talks of registration of existing commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk users of Ground Water in Notified Areas, and says:
"10. (1) Registration of existing commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk users of Ground Water: Every existing well for commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk user located in Notified Areas (both urban and rural areas) shall apply to the respective District Ground Water Management Council for grant of a certificate of registration. The procedure, time limit, forms, fee etc. and other provisions for the grant of registration certificate shall be such as may be prescribed:
Provided that-,
(a) where any existing Commercial user or Bulk user is found extracting ground water without registration, he or she or a group of persons or an agency (as the case may be) shall be liable to be punished under Chapter-VIII;
(b) where a registered well becomes defunct, the fact shall immediately be brought to the notice of the respective District Ground Water Management Council by the user of ground water;
(c) where any such user of ground water, having' certificate of registration wants to carry-out any modification or alteration in a registered well, he or she or a group of persons or an agency (as the case may be) shall obtain clearance for the same from the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Every existing and future users of ground water, other than those mentioned in sub-section (I), including domestic and agriculture users of ground water shall register online, or directly to the respective Block Panchayat Ground Water Management Committee/Municipal Water Management Committee for ground water usages. The web-portal for online intimation shall be informed by the said committee."
ix. Section 11 deals with similar registration of existing commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk users of Ground Water in Non-notified Areas.
287
"11. (1) Every well (existing or to be sinked) for commercial, industrial, infrastructural and bulk use of ground water in non- notified areas shall apply to the respective District Ground Water Management Council for grant of a certificate of registration. The procedure, time limit, forms, fee etc. and other provisions for the grant of registration certificate shall be such as may be prescribed Provided that-
(a) if any Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk user of ground water is found extracting ground water without registration, he or she or a group of persons or an agency (as the case may be) shall be liable to be punished under Chapter-VIII;
(b) if a registered well becomes defunct, this fact shall immediately be brought to the notice of the respective District Ground Water Management Council by the user of ground water;
(c) if any such user of ground water, having certificate of registration wants to carry-out any modification or alteration in a registered well, he or she or a group of persons or an agency (as the case may be) shall have to obtain clearance for the same from the respective District Ground Water Management Council in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Every existing and future user of ground water, other than those mentioned in sub-section (1), including a domestic or an agriculture user of ground water shall register online or directly to the respective Block Panchayat Ground Water Management Committee/Municipal Water Management Committee for ground water usages. The web-portal for online intimation shall be informed by the said committee."
x. Section 12 imposes restriction on new well constructions in Notified areas and reads as under:
"12. (1) No person or group of persons or institution or agency or establishment shall construct/sink any new well for Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural and Bulk use including construction of borings/tube-wells under Government Schemes within the Notified areas, except Government schemes for drinking water supplies and tree plantations. If anyone contravenes the provisions of this sub-section, he or she will be liable for punishment under Chapter-VIII. Such ban shall continue till the area is de-notified by the State Government on advice of Uttar Pradesh State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority on the basis of new Ground Water Recourse Estimation Report or significant improvement in declining trend of urban ground water levels after seeking approval from the State Government.
(2) Extraction, sale and supply of raw/unprocessed/ untreated ground water in Notified Areas by a person or 288 class of persons or institution or agencies or any other establishment for the purpose of commercial/bulk uses will not be allowed and such an act will be punishable under Chapter-VIII.
xi. Section 15 empowers SGWMRA, in consultation with Ground Water Department, to fix ground water abstraction limit for existing Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk users of ground water, while issuing registration for well in Notified as well as non-notified areas, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
xii. Section 24 deals with demarcation and protection of ground water quality sensitive zones for the purpose of prevention and control of ground water pollution in such areas and also to find safe quality zones for potable water supplies. Sub-section (2) says that the areas demarcated in sub-section (1) of Section 24 shall be declared as Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zones by Notification issued by State Government.
xiii. Section 28 imposes ban on direct recharging from open areas into aquifers and says:
"28. (1) In the process of Artificial Recharge to Ground Water from rain water (except from rooftop) falling on open land, ground, roads (paved/unpaved), agricultural farms shall not be allowed for direct recharging into the aquifers through recharge well, bore well, recharge shaft, injection well etc. (2) Any person who contravenes the provision of sub-section (1) shall be liable to be punished under sub-section (2) of section
39."
xiv. Section 34 imposes an obligation on the appropriate authorities to work for revival and rejuvenation of rivers, ponds, wells, etc. in every village. The said Authority shall develop and execute efficient plans to conserve such rivers, ponds, wells etc. xv. Section 35 imposes a duty upon appropriate Authority to undertake impact assessment of both social and environment 289 aspects of such activities to be implemented in the area of their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of UPGWMR Act 2019. Sub-section 2 of Section 35 provides that the process of impact assessment, shall include short-term and cumulative impact assessment in the following fields and specifically-
(a) Impact on right to water for life;
(b) Impact on drinking water sources;
(c) Impact on quality and quantity of groundwater;
(d) Impact on agricultural production;
(e) Impact on the ecosystem including rivers and water bodies;
(f) Impact on land use.
xvi. Section 39 in Chapter VIII provides offences and penalties and by virtue of Section 49 offence punishable under Section 39(1)(b)(i) is compoundable. District Magistrate of each District in State of UP is to act as District Ground Water Grievance Redressal Officer, vide Section 43(1).
xvii. In UPGWMMR Rules 2020, Chapter III provides a procedure of registration of Wells in Notified and Non-notified areas and Rule 6 reads as under:
"(1) Any existing Commercial or Industrial or Infrastructural or bulk user, who has sunk a well for extracting or using ground water in notified area or non-notified area before the date of coming into force of the Act, or any future Commercial or Industrial or Infrastructural or bulk user in Non-notified area shall make, in Form 1(A), an application referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 10 or sub-section (1) of section I 1 of Act, within a period of ninety days from the date of coming into force of the Act, to the District Ground Water Management Council; (2) Any existing Commercial or Industrial or Infrastructural or bulk user, who has sunk a well for extracting or using ground water in notified area or non-notified area before the date of coming into force of the Act, and have valid No Objection Certificate issued by either Central Ground Water Authority or by Ground Water Department, Uttar Pradesh for extracting or using ground water, shall make, in Form 1(B), an application referred to in sub-section (1) of section 10 or sub-section (1) of section 11 of Act, within a period 290 of ninety days from the date of coming into force of the Act, to the District Ground Water Management Council; (3) Every existing users of ground water, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (1) of rule 6, including domestic and agriculture users of ground water, who have sunk well or boring in his or her premises or agricultural land holdings, shall make, in Form 1(C), an application referred to in sub-section (2) of section 10 or sub-section (2) of section 11 of Act, within a period of six months from the date of coming into force of these rules, to the Block Panchayat Ground Water Management Committee or Municipal Water Management Committee, as the case may be;
(4) Every future users of ground water, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (1) of rule 6, including domestic and agriculture users of ground water, who desires to sink well or boring in his or her premises or agricultural land holdings, shall make, in Form 1(D), an application referred to in sub-section (2) of section 10 or sub-section (2) of section 11 of Act to the Block Panchayat Ground Water Management Committee for Municipal Water Management Committee, as the case may be, prior to sinking of such well;
Provided that a user who has sunk more than one well for extracting or using ground water in the area shall be required to submit separate application Form for each well.
(5) Form I shall be downloaded free of cost from the online web portal www.upgwdonline.in.
(6) Improper filling up of Form, and failure to annex all necessary documents specified in, Form 1 shall make the application liable to be rejected.
(7) All applications as mentioned in above sub clauses shall be submitted online at web portal www.upgwdonline.in." xviii. Rule 13 says that any future or existing user, under Rule 6(1), who does not have NOC by CGWA or Ground Water Department, Uttar Pradesh shall make, in Form 8(A), an application to DGWMC for issue of grant of Authorization/NOC. Rule 14 talks of similar users who have NOC issued by CGWA or Ground Water Department before the date of commencement of UPGWMR Act 2019, desires to continue extraction of ground water, and says that they shall also make an application but in Form 8(B). Rule 14(2) says that a user, having pre-existing right of ground water, 291 shall apply for renewal of NOC after one year from the date of commencement of UPGWMR Act 2019 or on expiry of validity of existing NOC, whichever is earlier. Rule 15 empowers DGWMC to grant or reject Authorization/NOC when application is submitted under Rule 13. However, when an application is submitted under Rule 14, DGWMC is to forward the same to Ground Water Department for technical comments.
xix. Chapter V comprised of Rules 18 and 19. It deals with identification and demarcation of Notified areas and read as under:
"18. Identification and demarcation of areas to be declared as Notified Areas, - in the manner -
(1) Rural Areas: Under the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of demarcation of the Notified Areas, the over-
exploited and critical blocks shall be considered. The Ground Water Department, therefore, shall identify and prepare the district wise list of blocks categorized as over-exploited and critical blocks, based on the latest ground water resource assessment report.
(2) Urban Areas: In the Urban sector, as provided in the Act, the stressed areas where ground water levels have depleted to critical/alarming levels shall be considered for the purpose of declaring such areas as Notified Areas. The Ground Water Department shall identify and delineate those urban areas as stressed, where ground water levels have recorded a significant decline of more than 20 cm per year during the last five years.
(3) The Ground Water Department shall submit the list of over- exploited and critical blocks and the stressed urban areas to the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority for notifying the said areas, as provided in the Act.
19. Issuance of Notification, -
(1) The State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority shall have necessary consultations on the inputs provided by the Ground Water Department related to Over- exploited and Critical blocks categorized as per the latest Ground Water Resource Assessment and the Stressed Urban areas identified by the Department on the basis of analysis of ground water depletion.
(2) The Authority, thereafter, shall advice the State Government to declare by Notification such areas as Notified Areas for the 292 purpose of implementation of different provisions of the Act. On the basis of recommendation of Ground Water Department, the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority shall also advice State Government to discontinue or redesign such Government schemes which are directly dependent on ground water extraction.
(3) The State Government shall duly consider the recommendation and advice of the State Authority for declaration of such areas as Notified Areas by Notification. in the Gazette.
(4) The notification referred to in sub rule (3) shall be uploaded on the websites of all concerned departments And shall also be published in two widely circulated newspapers in the area." xx. Chapter VI contains a solitary provision i.e. Rule 6 which deals with fixing limit of abstraction of ground water for commercial, industrial, infrastructural or bulk users and reads as under: "20. (1) For fixing ground water abstraction limit for all the existing Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk users of ground water, the Ground Water Department, in consultation with stake holders, shall, submit a proposal to the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority within six months from the date of commencement of these rules. (2) On the basis of proposal submitted by Ground Water Department, State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority shall fix ground water abstraction limits for all the Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk users of ground water.
(3) Ground water abstraction limits fixed under sub rule (2) shall be written in the registration or authorization certificate/ No-objection certificate for wells of existing Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk users of ground water in Notified as well as Non-notified areas and for all the new Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructural or Bulk users of ground water in Non-notified areas, as the case may be, for the purpose of Section 15."
xxi. Demarcation and declaration of Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zones are governed by Chapter VII, Rule 21 which reads as under: "21. Demarcation of Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zone:
(1) To collect, evaluate and analyze ground water quality data and related information for the purpose of generating an overview of the problem, the Ground Water Department shall hold technical consultations with the expert bodies such as Central Ground Water Board, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Central 293 and State Pollution Control Boards, Indian Institute of Toxicological Research, National Institute of Hydrology, IITs and also those Institutions, which have conducted area specific ground water quality studies, for providing the existing data, reports and information on ground water quality for both rural and urban segments of Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Based on the evaluation, analysis and mapping of such available data, the Ground Water Department shall proceed to generate and develop a comprehensive quality data base for the entire state. Subsequently, the department shall identify those areas which are found affected with poor ground water quality along with risk of pollution hazards on drinking and irrigation water supplies. Such areas shall be demarcated and mapped as Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zones.
(3) The department shall prepare a detailed district wise list of such Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zones with their GPS locations.
(4) The complete information on ground water quality for the entire state shall be submitted to the State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority for onward action, with the objective to ensure protection of ground water quality in such delineated zones through appropriate measures for prevention and control of pollution and finding safe quality areas for potable water supplies.
(5) State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority shall take immediate action and will issue directions to concerned departments to change or redesign their existing policies or schemes to ensure protection of ground water quality in such delineated zones. All concerned departments shall have to change or redesign their existing policies or schemes in such delineated zones.
(6) After issuance of direction in sub rule (5), if District Ground Water Management Council finds that any particular scheme of any department is responsible for pollution of ground water in that district, the Council in such cases shall immediately take action in consonance with the provision of the Act and also shall submit a case to State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority."
xxii. Rule 22 requires issue of notification to declare the identified area for Ground Water Quality Sensitive Zone for the purpose of UPGWMR Act 2019. The said notification is not only to be published in the Gazette but also to be placed as Public Notice by publication in three daily regional newspapers and also to be uploaded on the website. There are further procedures and 294 process for fixing standards of treated waste water and installation of treatment plant which we are omitting at this stage. Rain Water Harvesting is governed by Chapter IX. xxiii. UPGWMR Act 2019 read with UPGWMR Rules 2019 show that different Authorities have to conduct study in respect of ground water, following the procedure laid down therein and the Competent Authority only then must issue NOC/permission/clearance mentioning requisite conditions and data including quantity of permissible abstraction of ground water and not otherwise.
History of CGWA, its origin and relevant provisions relating to its powers, duties etc.:
291. Issue relating to depletion of ground water, for the first time, caught attention of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997)11SCC312. On 20.03.1996, in daily newspaper "Indian Express", published on 18.03.1996, a news item was published under the caption of "Falling Groundwater Level Threatens City". Court took judicial notice on 20.03.1996 and required CGWB and Delhi Pollution Control Committee to respond. On 03.04.1996, Court issued notices to Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Waterworks and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking. One scientist Dr. P.C. Chaturvedi, (Director), CGWB filed affidavit stating that since 1962 and onwards, water levels in country are declining. During the years 1971 to 1983, fall in water level was 4 meters to 8 meters in National Capital Territory. There was a further fall of water level from 4 meters to more than 8 meters during 1983 to 1985. One of the reasons stated in the affidavit for decline of water level was, enhanced pumpage. Consequently, Supreme Court issued notice to Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Government of National Capital Territory, 295 Delhi. The factual position regarding fall of water levels in the country was admitted in the affidavits filed by various authorities before Supreme Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.09.1996, Supreme Court requested Director, NEERI to examine the matter at institute level, by experts in the field, and submit report. NEERI was also required to submit suggestions and recommendations for checking further decline of underground water level. Consequently, NEERI submitted report dated 23.09.1996 with the title "Water Resources Management in India, Present Status and Solution Paradigm". An affidavit dated 24.10.1996 was filed on behalf of Ministry of Water Resources, by Additional Secretary, making comments on NEERI report, indicating an overall declining water level picture in the country, and also, schemes and activities undertaken by Government of India through various departments to monitor ground water. It was pointed out that in order to arrest depleting trend and to avoid indiscriminate withdrawal of ground water, Government of India had circulated a Model Bill to States/Union Territories, in 1970, to help them to bring out suitable legislation on the lines of Model Bill to regulate and control development of ground water in the respective areas. It was stated in the affidavit that in more than 120 blocks i.e. 231 blocks, in 6 Mandals, and 12 Talukas, level of ground water is over exploited. Noticing all these facts, Supreme Court, accepted one of the suggestions of NEERI, regarding constitution of an Authority under Section 3(3) of EP Act 1986, and passed order on 05.12.1996, over ruling objection taken by Ministry of Water Recourses, Government of India that water being a State subject, it would not be possible to constitute an Authority under Section 3(3) of EP Act 1986, and held that EP Act, 1986 is made by Parliament under Entry 13 List I Schedule 7 read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India and shall have an over-riding effect. There was already an Organization namely CGWB having its Office across the country, hence Supreme Court 296 directed that Central Government may consider to issue a Notification constituting the "Board" itself as an "Authority" under Section 3(3) of EP Act, 1986. It also observed that the said Authority would have all statutory powers under Section 3(3) of EP Act 1986 and would be in a position to have effective control all over India. Supreme Court also said that any institution/department constituted by State Government can independently function in its own field with the cooperation and under the guidance of the organization set up by CGWB.
292. As a result, thereof, we find Notification dated 14.01.1997 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest (hereinafter referred to as 'MoEF'), in exercise of power conferred by Section 3(3) of EP Act 1986 constituting CGWB as an Authority i.e. CGWA, for the purpose of regulation and control of ground water management and development, from the date of publication of the said Notification in the official Gazette. It was published in the Gazette of India on the same date.
293. As per para 1 of Notification of 1997, CGWA would constitute of the following:
(i) Chairman, CGWB-Chairperson
(ii) Member (Exploratory Drilling and Materials Management), CGWB-
Member
(iii) Member (Sustainable Management and Liaison), CGWB-Member
(iv) Member (Survey, Assessment and Monitoring), CGWB-Member
(v) An officer not below the rank of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India to be appointed by the Central Government-Member
294. Para 2 of the said Notification dated 14.01.1997, provided powers and functions of CGWA, and said:
"2. The Authority shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely: -297
(i) exercise of powers under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 for issuing directions and taking such measures in respect of all the matters referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act;
(ii) to resort to the penal provisions contained in sections 15 to 21 of the said Act;
(iii) to regulate indiscriminate boring and withdrawal of ground water in the country and to issue necessary regulatory directions with a view to preserve and protect the ground water."
295. The jurisdiction of the said Authority was declared to be whole of India, vide para 3.
296. Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others. (1997) (supra) also said that the Authority i.e., CGWA can resort to penal provisions contained in Section 15 to 21 of EP Act 1986. It also observed that main object for constitution of said Authority being the urgent need for regulating indiscriminate boring and withdrawal of underground water in the country, the said Authority so constituted, shall apply its mind to this urgent aspect of the matter and issue necessary regulatory directions with a view to preserve and protect underground water.
297. Initially, constitution of CGWA was for one year as provided in para 1 of Notification dated 14.01.1997. It was amended by Notification dated 13.01.1998, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) of the same date and in place of one year, it was made five years.
298. Another amendment was brought in Notification dated 14.01.1997 by Notification dated 05.01.1999, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 08.01.1999 and thereby, CGWA was made six persons Authority by adding Regional Director or an officer of equivalent rank, CGWB as Member Secretary.
298
299. The constitution of CGWA and its functions underwent a major amendment vide Notification dated 06.11.2000, published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 16.11.2000. Thereby, in para 1, period of CGWA was deleted, hence CGWA became an Authority without any limitation of period. Further, composition of CGWA was also changed by making it a ten members Committee including Chairman, with a further provision authorizing it to have some special invitees, as and when required. The new composition of CGWA was as follows:
(i) Chairman, CGWB-Chairman (ii) Member (Survey, Assessment and Monitoring), CGWB-Member
(iii) Member (Exploration Drilling and Materials Management), CGWB-
Member
(iv) Member (Sustainable Management and Liaison), CGWB-Member
(v) Member (Training and Technology Transfer), CGWB-Member
(vi) Joint Secretary (Administration), Ministry of Water Resources-
Member
(vii) Joint Secretary and Financial Adviser, Ministry of Water Resources-
Member
(viii) Joint Secretary, MoEF-Member
(ix) Chief Engineer, Irrigation Management Organisation (Water, Planning and Projects), Central Water Commission-Member
(x) Director/General Manager (Exploration), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.-Member
300. The aforesaid Notification further authorized CGWA to invite, from time to time, following, as special invitees, as and when required:
(i) Joint Secretary (Soil and Water Conservation), Department of Agriculture and Co-operation
(ii) Joint Secretary (Water Supply), Ministry of Urban Development 299
(iii) Joint Secretary (Department of Drinking Water Supply), Ministry of Rural Development
(iv) Director, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee
(v) Director, National Geo-physical Research Institute, Hyderabad.
301. The powers and functions of CGWA described by Notification dated 14.01.1997 were also amended and for clause (iii), the following clause (iii) and (iv) were substituted:
"(iii) to regulate and control, management and development of ground water in the country and to issue necessary regulatory directions for this purpose;
(iv) exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for appointment of officers."
302. CGWA was conferred with powers to issue directions under Section 5 and also to exercise powers on the matters referred to in Section 3(2) of EP Act 1986. Thus, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye-view of Section 3(3), 3(2) and 5 of EP Act 1986. Section 3(2) and (3) read as under:
"3(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), such measures may include measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:
(i) co-ordination of actions by the State Governments, officers and other authorities-
(a) under this Act, or the rules made thereunder, or
(b) under any other law for the time being in force which is relatable to the objects of this Act;
(ii) planning and execution of a nationwide programme for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution;
(iii) laying down standards for the quality of environment in its various aspects;
(iv) laying down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources whatsoever:
Provided that different standards for emission or discharge may be laid down under this clause from different sources having regard to the quality or composition of the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from such sources;
(v) restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards;
(vi) laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause environmental pollution and remedial measures for such accidents;300
(vii) laying down procedures and safeguards for the handling of hazardous substances;
(viii) examination of such manufacturing processes, materials and substances as are likely to cause environmental pollution;
(ix) carrying out and sponsoring investigations and research relating to problems of environmental pollution;
(x) inspection of any premises, plant, equipment, machinery, manufacturing or other processes, materials or substances and giving, by order, of such directions to such authorities, officers or persons as it may consider necessary to take steps for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution;
(xi) establishment or recognition of environmental laboratories and institutes to carry out the functions entrusted to such environmental laboratories and institutes under this Act;
(xii) collection and dissemination of information in respect of matters relating to environmental pollution;
(xiii) preparation of manuals, codes or guides relating to the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution;
(xiv) such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
"3(3) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising and performing such of the powers and functions (including the power to issue directions under section 5) of the Central Government under this Act and for taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the order and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such order, such authority or authorities may exercise the powers or perform the functions or take the measures so mentioned in the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by this Act to exercise those powers or perform those functions or take such measures."
303. Section 5 confers power to give directions which was also conferred upon CGWA by Central Government in its notification under Section 3(3). Section 5 reads as under:
"5. POWER TO GIVE DIRECTIONS:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may1 , in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions.
Explanation-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issue directions under this section includes the power to direct-301
(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or
(b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service."
304. Perusal of above, shows that Section 5 has been given an overriding effect over any other law but directions issued under Section 5 have to be within the compass of EP Act 1986 and cannot travel beyond. Further sub- section 2 of Section 3 has to be read with sub-section 1 which shows that power to take such measure as deemed necessary and expedient, was conferred with the clear objective that it should be for the purpose of protecting and improving quality of environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. Further the aforesaid power is also subject to the provisions of EP Act 1986.
305. Section 24 of EP Act 1986 also made a declaration that subject to sub-section 2, provisions of EP Act 1986 and the rules or orders made therein, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than EP Act, 1986.
306. Therefore, not only provisions of EP Act 1986 but even rules or orders issued under EP Act 1986 shall prevail over any other enactment except EP Act 1986. In other words, if, there is anything otherwise provided in EP Act 1986, then the rules/orders etc. will have to be read consistent therewith and as per legislative or statutory hierarchy, the one which is superior in hierarchy, shall prevail.
307. The steps, taken by Central Government or the Authority constituted under Section 3(3) with power to issue directions under Section 5 or to take such measures as are necessary under sub-section 2 of Section 3, are the orders in respect whereof, Section 24 sub-section 1 provides that the same shall prevail over any other enactment having any 302 inconsistent provision. The only exception is with regard to the offences and punishment, subject to the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24, which provides, where any Act or omission constitutes any offence punishable under EP Act 1986 and also under any other Act, then the offender found guilty of such offence, shall be liable to be punished under the other Act and not EP Act 1986.
308. Section 25 of EP Act 1986 confers power upon Central Government to frame rules and Section 26 provides procedure which obviously would not include or cover the direction or orders or steps taken by virtue to Section 3(2) or Section 5 of EP Act 1986.
309. Hence directions issued under Section 5 or orders issued on the matters referable to Section 3(2), in our opinion, are statutory orders. We have already discussed that EP Act 1986 is referable, to Entry 13 List I Schedule VII of the Constitution read with Article 253, having been enacted pursuant to the International Conference and resolutions and to give effect thereto, it shall prevail over Provincial legislation. All Provincial enactments, relating to ground water, therefore, would have to subserve the Guidelines issued by CGWA since these guidelines are referable, to Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of EP Act 1986. These guidelines are not mere executive orders but statutory orders and, in any case, having been issued in exercise of powers under EP Act 1986, as stated above, shall prevail over Provincial enactments/legislations. To the extent, subject is covered by EP Act 1986 and the orders issued by CGWA, Provincial legislature would lack power to make law, and if made, shall sub serve.
310. The limitation upon CGWA is that the guidelines, not only, are subject to the provisions of EP Act 1986 but should also conform the mandate that it should be for the purpose of protecting and improving 303 quality of environmental and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.
311. Supreme Court in its order dated 10.12.1996 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra), made it very clear, in para 12 of the judgment, that the main object for constitution of CGWB, as an Authority, is the urgent need for regulating indiscriminate boring and withdrawal of ground water in the country. Court further said that it has no doubt that the Authority, i.e., CGWA shall apply its mind to this urgent aspect of the matter and issue necessary regulatory directions with a view to preserve and protect ground water. Court reiterated its above directions by stating "This aspect may be taken up by the Authority on an urgent basis".
312. Supreme Court also took notice of the fact that there are some legislations in the States to regulate water resources development but by and large, ground water was being exploited all over the country, without any effective regulatory regime. It is in this regard, Court directed that an Authority under EP Act 1986 be constituted with powers necessary to deal with situation created by indiscreet abstraction of ground water causing depletion of ground water levels, dwindling surface water resources, deterioration of surface and ground water quality and haphazard land use.
313. In the same case, i.e., M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others. (1997) (supra), in earlier order dated 05.12.1996, Court had also rejected contention advanced on behalf of Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources that under the constitution, water is State subject and, therefore, Central Government or Parliament has no role. Court said that:
"We are prima facie of the view that the Act being an Act made by Parliament under Entry 13 List I read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India, it has an overriding effect."304
314. In S. Jagannath vs. Union of India & Others., 1997 (2) SCC 87, Supreme Court in its judgment dated 11.12.1996, was confronted with the situation where provincial legislations on coastal aquaculture regulating industries, set up in coastal areas, contained provisions which were not in consonance with Central enactment i.e., EP Act 1986 and notification issued by Government of India under Section 3(3) of the said Act, i.e. Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). Supreme Court held:
"...we are of the view that the Act being a Central legislation has the overriding effect. The Act, (the Environment Protection Act, 1986) has been enacted under Entry 13 of list I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The said entry is as under:
"Participation in international conferences, assessment and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat."
The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement the decisions taken at the United Nations' Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972. Parliament has enacted the Act under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India. The CRZ notification having been issued under the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the law made by the legislatures of the States."
(Emphasis added)
315. In Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation & Others (2019)18SCC494, it was reiterated when a similar question with respect to Provincial legislation vis-a-vis law on environment was raised. Supreme Court said:
"A Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of Schedule VII List I of the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State Legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify 'Buffer Zones around specific lakes and water bodies in contradiction with zoning regulations under these statutes or RMP". (Para 47) (Emphasis added)
316. Recently, in Civil Appeal No. 6932 of 2015, The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others., the above view taken in Mantri Technoze 305 Pvt. Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation (Supra) has been referred and followed.
317. Therefore, it is now established that irrespective of the legislative list contained in Schedule 7, whenever matter relates to environment is to be seen, if governed by the laws enacted on environment by Parliament, referable to entry 13 List 1 of 7th Schedule, the same shall prevail. In other words, when a subject is covered by a legislation referable to list 1 of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, to the extent matter is covered by such Central legislation, Provincial legislature would cease to have any legislative competence to that extent, irrespective of entry in list 2. Provincial legislature can make law only on the aspects not covered by Parliamentary enactment.
318. Thus, we are clearly of the view that on the subject of regulation of ground water, provisions of EP Act 1986, the orders issued by Central Government under Section 3(3), and by CGWA under section 5 and/or section 3(2) of EP ACT 1986 shall hold field and on this subject Provincial legislation cannot be brought in to impede, obstruct or deny or deprive CGWA, in its function for protection, perseveration and sustenance of ground water in the country.
319. Though CGWA was constituted in January 1997, we do not find much activity on its part initially for about two years. Only in 1999, CGWA issued "Guidelines for granting NOC for withdrawal of ground water by industries/projects w.e.f. 01.01.1999" (hereinafter referred to as 'Guidelines 1999'). It permits all industries seeking NOC for ground water abstraction, to submit application in the prescribed proforma, in the Office of Regional Director, CGWB of the concerned State or Member Secretary, CGWA, New Delhi. Proponent was to submit a referral letter from Statutory 306 Organizations like State Pollution Control Boards, MoEF, Bureau of Indian Standards, etc. for processing of its case. Proponent was also required to submit detailed designs for Rain Water Harvesting which was mandatory for areas falling in critical blocks. For evaluation of proposal, Guidelines 1999 provided, in respect of over-exploited, critical and semi-critical blocks, as under:
"Over-Exploited Blocks- It was decided that clearance to industries in Critical/Over-Critical areas needs to be considered on case to case basis and in case of severely over- exploited areas which are devoid of any deeper potential aquifers clearances for industrial use of ground water may be denied as per the policy. (21st meeting held on 24.5.2006). Critical Blocks-granting permits to industries for ground water extraction be considered subject to implementation of Rain Water Harvesting/Ground Water Recharge matching the proposed draft. (23rd meeting held on 28.8.2007).
Semi-critical Blocks-granting permits to industries be considered subject to implementation of Rain Water Harvesting/Ground Water Recharge. (23rd meeting held on 28.8.2007)."
320. Thereafter, a new set of Guidelines was issued, with effect from 20.10.2009, i.e., "Guidelines for evaluation of proposals/requests for ground water abstraction for drinking and domestic purposes in Notified areas and Industry/Infrastructure project proposals in non-notified areas"
(hereinafter referred to as 'Guidelines 2009'). It recognized high intensive development of ground water in certain areas, i.e. irrigation, drinking, domestic and industrial uses in the country, resulting in over-exploitation, leading to long term decline in ground water levels. In certain situations, quality of ground water was found deteriorated. As per the study available up to 2004, out of 5723 assessed units (Blocks, Mandals, Talukas and Districts), 839 were over-exploited, 226 critical, and 550 semi-critical.
However, details of Guidelines 2009 show, since CGWA had notified only 43 areas for the purpose of regulation of ground water development, hence it confined its regulatory action only to "notified areas". Guidelines also said that NOC can be accorded for construction of tube wells/replacement 307 of existing defunct well for drinking and domestic purpose to Government department entrusted with the water supply; other Government organizations if Water Supplying Department is not providing water in the area; schools/institutions/universities; hospitals; Embassies and State Bhawans. Pre-conditions for grant of NOC for abstraction of ground water to above categories were also given in said Guidelines.
321. Chapter A, para 1, of Guidelines 2009, gives details of the purpose for which NOC could be accorded, and pre-conditions for grant of NOC mentioned therein, are as under:
"I) NOC can be accorded for construction of tube wells/replacement of existing defunct well for drinking and domestic purpose to:
(i) Government department entrusted with the water supply
(ii) Other Government organizations if Water Supplying Department is not providing water in the area
(iii) Schools/Institutions/Universities
(iv) Hospitals
(v) Embassies
(vi) State Bhawans
(vii) For Individuals for individual households."
322. Guidelines 2009 further laid down pre-conditions for grant of NOC for abstraction of ground water to categories under serial no. (i) to (vi) in notified areas, as under:
"Pre-conditions for grant of NOC for abstraction of ground water to categories under Sl. No. (i) to (vi) are:
1. Maximum diameter of the tube well should be restricted to 100 mm only and capacity of the pump should not exceed 1HP except in case of Government water supply agencies. In case of Govt. water supply agencies, tubewell size/dia. can be more depending on the ground water availability and requirement.
2. Concurrent with the construction of tube well, the owner of the tube well shall undertake installation of the rain water harvesting structure in the premises within 45 days of issuance of NOC and will confirm to the Authority for verification.
3. The water from the tube well be used for drinking and domestic purposes only.
4. All details of the drilling like rock formations encountered, the depth and diameter of the constructed tube well, type of pipes 308 used, yield of bore well/tube well and ground water quality etc. have to be furnished to the nodal agency authorized by district administration head within 15 days of the completion of the construction.
5. This permission is valid for a period of two months from the date of issue of NOC except in case of Government water supplying agencies/departments."
323. In respect of Sl. No. (vii) i.e. For Individuals for individual households, in notified areas, Guidelines 2009 imposed conditions as under:
"1. Only one tube-well is allowed for construction in the premises to meet the drinking and domestic purposes. No tube-well/bore-well will be constructed, if any working tube-well already exists. In case the existing well has become non-functional and is to be replaced, it should be converted into recharge well, if possible or properly sealed and no water be pumped from it.
2. The persons(s) intending to construct new tube-well will intimate the Authorized office/Advisory Committee, 10 days in advance along with the name and address of the drilling agency, which will undertake construction of tube-well. Authorities/Nodal Agency can ask the user to supply additional information.
3. The maximum diameter of the tube-well should be restricted to 100mm only and the capacity of the pump should not exceed 1HP.
4. Concurrent with the construction of tube-well, the owner of the tube-well shall undertake installation of the rainwater harvesting system in the premises.
5. The water from the tube-well/bore-well will be used exclusively for drinking and domestic purposes only.
6. All details of the drilling like rock formations encountered, the depth and diameter of the constructed tube well, type of pipes used in tube-well, yield of bore well/ tube well and ground water quality etc. shall be kept for record and are to be provided at the time of inspection.
7. Any violation of the above conditions will attract legal action under section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986."
324. Chapter A, para II of Guidelines 2009 said that permission will not be accorded for construction of tube well for agriculture, industrial, commercial, horticulture and construction purposes in "notified areas". 309
325. Chapter B of Guidelines 2009, laid down Guidelines for evaluation of proposals/requests for abstraction of ground water for industrial/infrastructure projects, in non-notified areas. Para B-1, mentioned 12 criteria on which the proposals shall be evaluated i.e. (i) purpose of ground water use, (ii) area of ground water against its availability, (iii) availability of shallow aquifer, (iv) availability of deeper aquifer, (v) Criteria for recycling and reuse of effluents, (vi) adoption of water conservation measures, (vii) installation of water meters, (viii) examining the scope of rain water harvesting and ground water recharging potential, (ix) land use, (x) ground water draft, (xi) saline ground water aquifers and (xii) mining areas.
326. It was stated further that project proposals for various purposes would be evaluated for consideration of ground water abstraction, under different hydrological conditions, including water conservation measures in safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited areas. A chart was given for evaluation of proposals to abstract ground water for industries, as under:
"Evaluation of Proposals to Abstract Ground Water for Industries Category Stage of Recycle/Reuse Other Water Withdrawal Development Conservation permitted Practices (%age of proposed recharge) Safe <70 Mandatory recycling Water audit To be brought and reuse of water measures to be under the adopted purview if quantity of abstraction exceeds 1000 m3 /day in hard rock areas and 2000 m3 /day in alluvial areas. RWH to be adopted.
Semi-critical 70-100 Efficient utilization of Water audit Withdrawal
recycled water and measures to be may be
reuse of water should adopted permitted
be mandatory. subject to
undertaking of
recharge
measures. Since
the area is less
310
stressed, at
least 50%
recharge be
made
mandatory.
Critical 90-100 Efficient utilization of Water audit Withdrawal
recycled water and measures to be may be
reuse of water should adopted permitted
be mandatory. subject to
undertaking of
recharge
measures. The
quantum of
recharge
should be
equal to or
more than the
proposed
withdrawal.
Over- >100 Efficient utilization of Water audit Withdrawal
exploited recycled water and measures to be may be
reuse of water should adopted permitted up to
be mandatory. 60% of
proposed
recharge. Also
withdrawal
should not
exceed a
maximum
limit of 1500
m3 /day for "
each unit.
327. Chapter B, Para B-2 of Guidelines 2009, laid down certain conditions for abstraction of ground water for infrastructure projects in non- notified areas, as under:
"B-2 ABSTRACTION OF GROUND WATER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Run-off from the entire project area is to be utilized for artificial recharge to ground water.
In case of residential township and colony, the quantum of water for usage other than drinking/ domestic shall not exceed 25% of the total requirement.
The concerned State Government, while sanctioning any infrastructure project is to look into the ground water availability aspect also.
Proponents are to submit a status report on water supply available from water supplying agencies stating the quantum of water that would be provided by the agency."
328. In para B-3, conditions for abstraction of ground water for industrial projects in non - notified areas was laid down as under:
"B-3 ABSTRACTION OF GROUND WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
a) Areas having Deeper Aquifers:
In all Over-exploited and Critical areas having deeper potential aquifers, withdrawal may be permitted irrespective of the stage of development subject to:311
(a) Withdrawal of water from deeper aquifers only,
(b) Implementing recharge measures to recharge shallow/deeper aquifers to the extent possible within the lease/industry area
(c) Recommendation of concerned Regional Directorate on feasibility of exploitation of deeper aquifers.
b) Water table intersection by mining industries and dewatering of mine pit water Abstraction of ground water by mining industry intersecting water table can be permitted and dewatering of mine pit water be permitted subject to the following conditions:
The mine water is to be put to gainful use. This may include water supply to adjacent areas and local water supply agencies, utilization for dust suppression by the industry, utilization by the mining industry for different processes, utilization for artificial recharge to ground water etc. Piezometers for monitoring the ground water level are to be mandatorily installed within the mine lease area and in peripheral areas. The record of water level data be maintained and to be provided whenever demanded by the regulating agency.
c) Abstraction of saline ground water by Industries Due care to be taken in respect of disposal of the effluents by the units so as to protect the water bodies and the sub-surface shallow aquifers from pollution. Proposals pertaining to the cases must have a detailed report elucidating the mechanism of handling the effluent water and its various uses. All precautions must be taken for protection of environment. Large scale recharge mechanism is mandatory in such cases to improve the ground water quality in the region."
329. Certain exemption of industries from obtaining NOC was provided in para-B-3 (IV) as under:
"IV Exemption of Industries from obtaining NOC from CGWA.
(i) Industries requiring ground water upto 25 m3/day located in over exploited areas; upto 50 m3/day for critical areas; and upto 100 m3/day in semi-critical areas are exempted from obtaining NOC for ground water abstraction from CGWA.
The responsibility of verifying the actual requirement and withdrawal is vested with the State Pollution Control Boards.
It should also be mandatory for such industries to undertake Rain Water Harvesting to the extent possible and enforcement of the same is vested with the State Pollution Control Boards.
(ii) Industries located in Safe category areas, are required to obtain NOC from CGWA if ground water abstraction by the industry exceeds 1000 m3 /day for hard rock areas and 2000m3/day for alluvial areas. Such cases will be examined as in 'B'. (The above will not include industries which are using water as a raw material like packaged drinking water industries, distilleries and breweries)"
312
330. For the purpose of monitoring of implementation of Guidelines 2009, CGWA made State Pollution Control Boards, responsible. Further, a Committee was constituted at District level for evaluation of industry/infrastructure project proposals seeking ground water clearances, comprising of:
(i) District Collector - Chairman
(ii) Hydrogeologist, CGWB of concerned District - Member
(iii) Representative from Industry - Member
(iv) Representative from Pollution Control Boards - Member
(v) Additional member to be adopted if required.
331. The aforesaid Guidelines show that all substantially highly affected areas, facing scarcity of ground water, already placed in the category of over-exploited and critical, were not managed/regulated on a mere pretext that CGWA has notified only 43 areas and, therefore, CGWA without any reason, in an unwarranted and unauthorized manner, defied directions of Supreme Court issued in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra), by restricting its activity of regulation to only 43 "notified areas"
for protection of ground water. This approach of CGWA was not consistent with the directions given by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra). Further, unfortunately, CGWA assumed role of mere licensing Authority, permitting abstraction of ground water by industrial and other establishments, and failed to withstand the expectations and objective with which it was constituted. It restricted its statutory duties on its own, ignoring mandate of Supreme Court requiring it to take immediate steps to protect depletion of ground water where its level had gone down to alarming level, unconcerned to whether it is notified or not, in the entire country.313
332. Vide instruction no. 26-1/CGWA/D1/09/744 dated 08.10.2009, CGWA issued directions to Heads of Central Road Research Institute, National Highway Authority of India, Central Public Works Department, State Public Works Department, Indian Railways, Sports Authority of India, Board of Cricket Control of India, Airport Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs to take up rain water harvesting/adopt artificial recharge of ground water to augment ground water resources and to save it from further depletion. In furtherance of above, CGWA said:
"1. The Director, Central Road Research Institute, Chairman, National Highway Authority of India, Director General, Central Public Works Department; Heads of the State Public Works Department whether called as Secretary, Principal Secretary or by any other name; Chairman, Railway Board; Head of Sports Authority of India; Chairman, Airport Authority of India; Director General, Ministry of Civil Aviation; Heads of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, shall ensure taking up rain water harvesting/adoption of artificial recharge to ground water in the country by their respective organizations/Departments, within a period of 365 days from the date of receipt of this direction, to augment ground water resources and to save it from further depletion.
2. The above authorities shall obtain site-specific designs and other technical guidance from the Regional Director/Office-in-Charge of Central Ground Water Board or the Ground Water Department of the State/Union Territory.
3. The Regional Director/Officer-in-charge of Central Ground Water Board or the Ground Water Department of the State/UT, upon request from the above authorities shall extend all necessary technical assistance/design input.
4. The authorities mentioned in the directions No. 1, shall intimate the action taken report in this connection, to Central Ground Water Authority within a period of 90 days of completion of rainwater harvesting/recharge structure."
333. Another direction was issued vide instruction no. 26-1/ CGWA/D1/09/743/783 dated 08.10.2009, directing all residential group housing societies/institutions/schools/hotels/industrial establishments falling in the over-exploited and critical areas as specified in the Schedule, to adopt roof top Rain Water Harvesting systems in their premises. They were directed to complete the systems, by May 2010. 314
334. CGWA issued a new set of Guidelines namely "Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals/Requests for Ground Water Abstraction"
(hereinafter referred to as 'Guidelines 2012') which came into force on 15.11.2012.
335. Guidelines 2012 laid down different parameters for notified areas and non-notified areas. Chapter A with the title 'Notified Areas' said that permission to abstract ground water through any energized means will not be accorded for any purpose other than drinking water. In para II, it provided that NOC can be accorded for construction of ground water abstraction structures/replacement of existing defunct well for drinking purpose only to:
"a. Government department/Agency/Undertaking entrusted with the water supply b. Other Government organizations/State Government Guest Houses/Registered Housing societies c. Schools/educational & State/Central Government recognized research Institutions/ Universities d. Hospitals."
336. It further stated that NOC for items (b) to (d) will be considered only if Water Supplying Department is not providing adequate water in the area/ premises. Further it laid down pre-conditions for grant of NOC for abstraction of ground water to categories (a) to (d) as under:
"1. Maximum diameter of the groundwater abstraction structures should be restricted to 150 mm (6 inches) only and capacity of the pump should not exceed 1 HP. In case of Government water supply agencies, housing societies, tube well size/dia. & HP of prime mover can be more depending on the ground water availability and requirement.
2. Concurrent with the construction of groundwater abstraction structures, the organization shall undertake artificial recharge to groundwater through rain water harvesting structure in the premises within 45 days of issuance of NOC and will confirm to the Authorised Officer for verification.
3. Water meter installation in the abstraction structure is mandatory and confirmation of water meter installation shall be given to the Authorised Officer under intimation to the concerned Regional office of CGWB immediately after construction. The daily water meter reading should be 315 maintained and quarterly report should be submitted to Authorised Officer.
4. The water from the groundwater abstraction structures will be used for drinking and domestic purposes only.
5. All details of the drilling like rock formations encountered, the depth and diameter of the constructed groundwater abstraction structures, type of pipes used, yield of bore well/ tube well (Fracture zones encountered/zones tapped) and ground water quality etc. have to be furnished to the nodal agency authorized by district administration head within 15 days of the completion of the construction.
6. The permission for construction of groundwater abstraction structure would be valid for a period of six months from the date of issue of NOC.
7. The NOC issued would be non-transferable."
337. Another category, "Individual Household" also could be accorded NOC for drinking purposes. Conditions for the same, provided in Guidelines 2012, read as under:
"e. For Individual households:
1. Permission to be granted only for such cases where public water supply system does not exist. The permission shall be valid only till such time there is no public water supply provided. In that case, the abstraction structure shall be exclusively utilized for artificial recharge to groundwater or sealed.
2. A certificate from the water supply agency regarding non-
availability of government water supply to the area/individual is to be submitted by the applicant.
3. The premises should have only one Groundwater abstraction structure (either existing or new) to meet the drinking and domestic requirements. No tube-well/bore-well will be constructed, if any working tube-well already exists. In case the existing well has become non-functional and is to be replaced, it should be converted into recharge well, if possible or properly sealed and no water be pumped from it. An undertaking as per Annexure-II is to be submitted by individual.
4. The person(s) intending to construct new tube-well will seek permission from the Authorized officer/Advisory Committee, at least 30 days in advance along with the name and address of the drilling agency, which will undertake construction of tube-well. Authorities/Nodal Agency can ask the user to supply additional information.
5. The maximum diameter of the tube-well should be restricted to 110 mm (4 ½ inches) only and the capacity of the pump should not exceed 1HP. In case of deep water level the capacity/dia. of the structure will be decided by the Authority based on the site specific recommendations.
6. Concurrent with the construction of groundwater abstraction structure, the owner of the tube-well shall 316 undertake artificial recharge to groundwater through rainwater harvesting in the premises.
7. The water from the tube-well/bore-well will be used exclusively for drinking and domestic purposes only within the premises.
8. All details of the drilling like rock formations encountered, the depth and diameter of the constructed tube-well, (Fracture zones encountered/zones tapped) type of pipes used in tube well, yield of bore well/tube well and ground water quality etc., shall be kept for record and are to be provided at the time of inspection.
9. Any violation of the above conditions will attract legal action under section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In case the notified area is de-notified subsequently, the conditions pertaining to "non-notified areas" shall be followed."
338. Guidelines 2012 said, if a notified area is subsequently de-notified, conditions pertaining to non-notified areas shall be followed.
339. Chapter B of Guidelines 2012 dealt with "non-notified areas". It is stated that NOC for ground water withdrawal will be considered for industries/infrastructure projects which are either new or under expansion as per the criteria given in Para I to VI, which reads as under:
"B. NON-NOTIFIED AREAS NOC for Ground Water withdrawal will be considered for Industries/Infrastructure projects which are either NEW or under EXPANSION as per the criteria given below:
I. Industries
Category* Recycle/Reuse Withdrawal permitted
(for various purposes (% of proposed recharge)
except recharge to
ground water)
Safe Mandatory recycling NOC is required for groundwater
and reuse of water withdrawal if quantity of
groundwater abstraction
exceeds 100 m /day. AR to
3
groundwater to be adopted.
However, Industries under B-
VI have no exemption from
obtaining NOC.
Semi-critical Major and Medium Withdrawal may be permitted
industries shall subject to undertaking of
recycle recharge** measures. The
and reuse at least withdrawal should not
50% of the waste exceed 200% of the
water recharged quantity.
Critical Major and Medium Withdrawal may be permitted
industries should fully subject to undertaking of recycle and reuse the recharge** measures. The 317 waste water withdrawal should not exceed 100% of the recharged quantity.
Over- Full utilization of Withdrawal may be permitted
exploited recycled water and subject to undertaking of
(except reuse of water should recharge** measures. The
industries be mandatory withdrawal should not
falling exceed 50% of the recharged
under quantity.
category
mentioned
in B(VI)
*The present guidelines will follow the assessment of Ground Water Resource Estimation (GWRE) 2009 till it is revised. **The recharge should be implemented within the premises and/or preferably in the same water shed/assessment unit. Detailed Project Proposal (DPR) shall be included along with the application for NOC.
II. Infrastructure Projects (SEZ, Group Housing projects, Residential townships, Hospitals, Educational Institutions, Roads, Bridges, Technology parks, Malls, Multiplex, etc.) a. Run-off from the entire project area is to be utilized for artificial recharge to ground water unless risk of contamination exists or area is water logged. The runoff from the entire premises shall be utilized for harvesting/storage also, apart from recharge. b. The quantum of ground water for usage other than drinking/domestic shall not exceed 25% of total ground water abstraction in case of Housing projects/Residential Townships. c. Proponents are to submit a status report stating the quantum of water required and the quantity that would be provided by the Government Water Supplying agency. This should be supported by a letter from the agency.
III. Areas Having Specific Depth Zones Notified:
a. In areas where specific depth zones are notified, permission to withdraw groundwater can be considered based on the site specific recommendations of Regional Directorate of CGWB from the depth zones, which are not coming under the notification.
IV. Mining and Dewatering Projects Abstraction of ground water by mining industries intersecting water table for dewatering of mine pit water, and dewatering ground water for basement construction of buildings, etc., may be permitted subject to the following conditions in addition to those already specified under Para B-I. a. The dewatered quantum of water is to be put to gainful use. This may include water supply and provide to water supply agencies, agriculture, dust suppression by the industry, utilization by the mining industry, utilization for artificial recharge to groundwater, etc. b. Piezometers for monitoring the ground water level are to be mandatorily installed within the premises and in peripheral areas. The record of water level data be maintained and to be 318 provided periodically or whenever demanded by the regulating agency.
c. Wherever the mines/dewatering project is situated in the coastal area special care should be taken to prevent sea water ingress. This should be supported by a technical evaluation report.
d. In case of mining projects detailed and continuous study on the groundwater regime, including groundwater modeling should be carried out and the results should be submitted to the Regional Directorate of CGWB periodically.
V. Abstraction of Saline Ground Water by Industries/ infrastructure Projects Industries/infrastructure projects desirous of utilizing saline ground water would be permitted to extract saline groundwater. However, due care to be taken in respect of disposal of the effluents by the units so as to protect the water bodies and the aquifers from pollution. Proposals pertaining to such cases must have a detailed project report elucidating the mechanism of handling the effluent water and its various uses. All precautions must be taken for protection of environment especially fresh water aquifers in and around the area. Large scale recharge mechanism should be adopted wherever feasible in such cases to improve the ground water conditions in the region.
VI. Industries Using Groundwater as Raw Material and other Water Intensive Industries Industries using water as raw material/water intensive industries like packaged drinking water, mineral water industries, distilleries, breweries, soft drink manufacturing industries, textiles, paper & pulp, etc. shall not be granted NOC for groundwater withdrawal from OE areas. In Safe, Semi-Critical & Critical areas NOC for ground water withdrawal is mandatory for these industries as per Section B-1. However, ground water withdrawal will be limited as follows:
Category Ground water withdrawal limit
Safe Withdrawal limited to 200% of ground water
recharge
Semi-critical Withdrawal limited to 100% of ground water recharge Critical Withdrawal limited to 50% of ground water recharge Over-exploited No permission for industries under this category "
340. Some further conditions are provided in clause D as under:
"D. OTHER CONDITIONS (Applicable for all cases):
a. Sale and supply of raw/unprocessed/untreated ground water by unauthorized agencies for commercial use is not permitted. b. Non-compliance of conditions mentioned in the NOC may be taken as sufficient reason for cancellation of NOC accorded/ non-renewal of NOC.319
c. Wherever State Government Authorities are in existence to manage and control ground water regimes, the Groundwater Regulation would be done by them. The State Ground Water Authority (SGWA) shall send a quarterly progress report to CGWA for records.
d. In case of any delay in executing the project for bona fide reasons within the set time, for which NOC has been granted, the firm shall apply to CGWA for extension. CGWA may consider extension based on its merits.
e. No application for NOC shall be entertained without proper referral letters from the statutory authority (Central and State Govt. Dept and Agencies).
f. The referral letter shall contain verification on the quantum of water for the industry/project with detailed break up of groundwater consumption, recycle & reuse of the waste water, so that the wastage of the precious resource can be avoided. In case this is not given by the referral authority, applicant should obtain a letter from the Industries Dept/Project Sanctioning Authority on the same line.
g. The CRZA rules and regulation shall be applicable wherever in vogue.
h. No permission required for withdrawal of ground water from any area if withdrawal is done through non-energized means. i. Mandatory clause on RWH may be relaxed in case of water logged/shallow water level (<5 m bgl during pre-monsoon) areas. j. Relaxation in the quantity of ground water withdrawal in over-exploited areas, and/or quantity of recharge being affected by the firm can be permitted by CGWA if it feels it absolutely necessary in national interest. k. The artificial recharge proposals are required to be vetted by any competent authority of State/Centre.
l. Treated water shall not be used for recharge to ground water, since it may contain heavy metals & other toxic elements. The treated waters shall be fully used by the proponent or any other agency, who can utilize it without contaminating the underlying aquifer / water bodies. m. NOC issued is non-transferable."
341. Thus Guidelines 2012 show that study of State wise resources as on 31.03.2009 was available, showing that out of 5842 assessment units (Blocks, Mandals, Talukas, districts), 802 were over-exploited, 169 critical, 523 semi-critical, 4277 safe and 71 saline. Annual replenishable ground water resources was estimated as 431 billion cubic meters (hereinafter referred to as 'bcm'), net ground availability was 396 bcm and overall stage of ground water development of the country was 61%.
342. Guidelines 2012 further stated that CGWA has notified 82 areas for the purpose of regulation of ground water development. District 320 Administrative Head i.e. Divisional Commissioner or District Magistrate in case of Administrative Block or Taluka or Head of Municipality in case of municipal area of notified area, was appointed Authorized Officer by CGWA under Section 4 of EP Act, 1986. All issues pertaining to grant of NOC for ground water withdrawal, checking violations, sealing of ground water abstraction structure, launching of prosecution against offenders, attending to complaints etc. were to be addressed by Authorized Officers. In "notified area", Guidelines said, that permission to abstract ground water through any energized means will not be accorded for any purpose other than drinking water. In notified area, NOC was open for sanction for drinking purposes only and that too to the limited categories of Government departments entrusted with water supply, other Government organizations and educational institutions-private or Governmental including research institutions/universities and also hospitals where water supply is not available from Government or semi-governments water supply departments. In non-notified areas, directions for grant of NOC for withdrawal of ground water to new and under expansions industries and infrastructure projects with certain conditions, were mentioned in Guidelines 2012.
343. Here again we find that CGWA, in respect of over-exploited and critical areas, assumed jurisdiction in a restricted manner by confining it to 82 areas which it had notified, though it is evident from Guidelines, that as per Ground Water Resource Estimates of 2009, 802 areas were identified as over-exploited and 169 as critical and 523 semi-critical. This restricted regulation assumed by CGWA was clearly in defiance of dictates of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others. (1997) (supra).
321
344. At this stage, we find that OA No. 59/2012, Vikrant Kumar Tongad vs. Union of India & Others was filed before Tribunal, raising grievance that there is under regulated, large scale dewatering of areas particularly in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA, by various construction companies, excessive use of ground water and non-compliance of notifications and guidelines issued under EP Act 1986 which is causing depletion of ground water level in district Gautam Buddha Nagar, (State of Uttar Pradesh). Applicant, Vikrant Kumar Tongad requested Tribunal to direct authorities concerned to, make proper assessment of depletion in ground water level in district Gautam Buddha Nagar, stop dewatering activity in violation of guidelines, regulate ground water extraction for commercial, industrial, residential and other purposes, stop illegal water packaging units, make assessment of their impact on ground water, implement regulations related to ground water harvesting and take penal action against defaulting industries, infrastructure units and establishments etc. State of UP contested the matter by filing reply dated 06.02.2013 wherein it admitted depletion of ground water level in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA, at certain places, but pleaded its compulsion on the ground of fulfilment of daily requirement of urban and rural populace. It also brought before Tribunal the efforts taken by State of UP for conservation of ground water resources by taking steps as under:
(i) An Executive Committee under Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of UP was constituted in 2004 to review rain water harvesting and ground water recharge programmes in State of UP;
(ii) Roof top rain water harvesting systems was made mandatory for individual plots having size of 300 square meters or more, made compulsory for existing as well as new Government and Semi-
Government buildings;
322
(iii) Housing schemes/plans of 20 acres or more at the layout level, 5% of total areas was to be kept aside for pond/water bodies while maximum depth of ponds is to be kept 3 meters;
(iv) Pucca construction in parks would be allowed only up to 5% of total area and as far as possible, pavements would be made of permeable or semi-permeable/perforated material;
(v) For new schemes, geological and hydrological surveys need be carried out so that ground water recharging system can be adopted as per local conditions;
(vi) For monitoring of ground water level and assessment of ground water quality in all industrial units, installation of piezometers (ground water monitoring system) was made compulsory;
(vii) Steps were taken for spreading awareness amongst general public;
(viii) Ground Water Department of State was assigned job of regular monitoring of ground water level, in both, urban and rural areas and also to conduct block wise ground water resource estimation.
(ix) Central Government had not framed any norms for ground water resource assessment in urban areas but the State Government of U.P. issued various Government orders dated 12.04.2001, 08.09.2004, 19.11.2004, 02.12.2004, 28.09.2004, 25.04.2006, 01.07.2008, 19.06.2009 and 05.08.2010 wherein, besides other thing, more emphasis was laid on rain water harvesting.
345. A separate reply was filed by CGWA, dated 12.02.2013, wherein it referred to Guidelines 2012 and reiterated that State wise assessment of ground water resources was last assessed, as on 31.03.2009 which revealed 802 units in the category of over-exploited but there against only 162 units were notified and therein extraction of ground water was made impermissible for any purpose other than drinking water. In respect of 323 Gautam Buddha Nagar, it pointed out that it had four blocks-Bisrakh, Dadri, Dankaur and Jewar. As per estimation on 31.03.2004, all the four blocks were in the category of safe but as per the estimation on 31.03.2009 Bisrakh and Dankaur entered the category of "semi-critical" and Block Jewar shifted to the category of "over-exploited". Only Dadri could maintain its category of "safe" though ground water development had gone from 25.98% (as on 31.03.2004) to 73.03% (as on 31.03.2009).
346. CGWA, however, did not give any reason, why despite identification of large number of units as over-exploited only fraction thereof were notified. Boldly it continued to ignore and defy mandate of Supreme Court, given in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra).
347. From the record, we find that application filed by Vikrant Kumar Tongad was admitted on 21.11.2012 and an interim order was also passed on 11.01.2013 granting injunction against abstraction of ground water by builders in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
348. When the above matter was pending, CGWA issued an additional Guideline/criteria which came into force on 05.04.2013, permitting abstraction of saline ground water in notified areas subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.
349. At this stage, one more application i.e., OA No. 108/2013, Legal Aid National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs. NCT of Delhi & Others was filed under Section 18(1) read with 14, 15 and 17 of NGT Act, 2010 which raised grievance concerning illegal abstraction of ground water in State of Delhi resulting into abnormal fall in ground water level. It refers to a notification dated 12.07.2010 published in Delhi Gazette dated 9th- 15th July, 2010 issued by Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of EP Act 1986 324 stating that no person etc. shall draw ground water through bore well or tube well (new or existing), without permission, for domestic, commercial, agriculture and/or industrial uses. Applicant therein sought relief from this Tribunal directing authorities concerned to implement relevant provisions for effective management and regulation of ground water and rain water harvesting. This application was taken up on 23.04.2013 and notices were issued to the respondents. Tribunal required respondents to specifically place on record how many bore wells/tube wells were working in Delhi and how many of them were authorized or unauthorized. In the reply filed by Delhi Jal Board and other authorities, it was stated that there were 106 tube wells operating with permission and 205 were functioning unauthorizedly and illegally. Tribunal found that the persons operating tube wells, illegally, were not paying any charges to the authorities and it had become an incentive for illegal and unauthorized use of ground water leading to depletion of underground water and the common problem of water scarcity to the people of Delhi. Consequently, a Committee was constituted to collect complete data of legal and illegal tube wells working in NCT of Delhi, take potential action against illegally operating tube wells/bore wells, recommend measures to be taken to prevent fall of level of ground water in Delhi and also to suggest methods and means for encouraging rain water harvesting and efforts for recharging level of ground water in Delhi.
350. A similar grievance/complaint was made in OA No. 179/2013, Raj Hans Bansal vs. Ministry of Water Resources & Others in respect of NCT of Delhi. Notices were issued in this matter to the respondents on 23.08.2013 and subsequently, it was clubbed with OA No. 108/2013 (supra) vide order dated 19.11.2013.
325
351. During pendency of above matters, Guidelines 2012 underwent a minor amendment by CGWA Notification dated 06.08.2014 stating that Guidelines/Criteria thenceforth will follow report on ground water resources estimation as on March 2011 for evaluation of project proposal of industries/infrastructures/mining, seeking ground water extraction.
352. Neither the above Guidelines resulted in any improvement to pathetic condition of constant depletion of ground water nor CGWA made any serious attempt for betterment of the situation. The water level continued to deplete.
353. Complaints about ineffective, inadequate and improper regulatory measures adopted and/or omissions on the part of CGWA, and indiscriminate extraction of ground water continuously, across the country, were brought before Tribunal in several other matters. One of such matters is OA No. 176/2015 (supra) wherein grievance raised was that large number of hotels in State of UP were drawing ground water for commercial purposes without having any permission/sanction from CGWA and authorities including UPPCB, CPCB; and that CGWA is not taking any action against them though their action of withdrawal of ground water illegally is causing harm to environment, ground water level and global warming. This application was entertained and notices were issued to the respondents on 26.05.2015. It was found that 3 hotels namely Hotel Holiday Regency, Moradabad, Hotel Clark Awadh, Lucknow and Hotel Country Inn, Sahibabad were extracting ground water without permission while Hotel Sunshine Park, Ghaziabad claimed that it was having a separate water connection from Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam. Hotel Raddisson Blu, Kaushambi informed that it has both sources of water i.e. ground water and water supply from Nagar Nigam. Extraction of ground 326 water was not with the permission of CGWA though after filing of OA, some hotels moved application and subsequently got permission from CGWA.
354. CGWA, in response, relied on Guidelines 2012 and took the stand that it is regulating only notified areas where abstraction of ground water is permissible only for drinking water but in non-notified areas the permission can be granted subject to conditions mentioned in Guidelines 2012.
355. Thereupon, CGWA issued another set of Guidelines (a draft at that stage) namely "Guidelines/Criteria for evaluation of proposals/request for ground water abstraction", (hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines 2015"), giving effect from 16.11.2015, claiming that the same have been framed as per Tribunal's direction for further betterment of ground water regulatory processes. CGWA invited objections/suggestions/comments till 15.01.2016. These Guidelines show that latest assessment of State wise ground water resources was available to CGWB as on 31.03.2011. According to which, out of 6607 assessment units (Blocks, Mandals, Talukas, districts), 1071 were over-exploited, 217 critical, 697 semi- critical, 4580 safe and 92 saline. Annual replenishable ground water resource was estimated as 433 bcm and net ground water availability as 398 bcm. Overall stage of ground water development of country was 62%. Guidelines 2015 also show that till that time, CGWA had notified only 162 areas for the purpose of regulation of ground water development. Guidelines 2015 sought to supersede all earlier Guidelines w.e.f. 16.11.2015. In respect of notified areas, it provided that permission to abstract ground water through any energized means will not be accorded for any purpose other than drinking water. However, in respect of non- notified areas, CGWA followed very flexible stand which it had earlier also, but with certain conditions. It provided that NOC for ground water 327 withdrawal will be considered for industries/infrastructure/mining projects, as per categorization of the areas i.e., safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited. It also said that industries using water as raw material/water intensive industries shall not be granted NOC for ground water withdrawal in over-exploited area.
356. The ineffectiveness and casual approach of CGWA was brought to the notice of Tribunal, with further complaint that ground water level in entire country is continuously depleting and going down, in OA No. 176/2015 (supra). It was also pointed out that by order dated 15.04.2015 in OA No. 204/2014, Krishan Kant Singh vs. M/s. Deoria Paper Ltd., Tribunal directed that it shall be obligatory upon CGWA to ensure that any person operating tube well or any means to abstract ground water should obtain its permission and operate the same subject to law in force, whether it is existing unit or still to be established, and in compliance thereof, Guidelines 2015 were published, inviting objections.
357. The matter of Vikrant Kumar Tongad (supra) came up for consideration on 26.07.2018. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of Tribunal that water is depleting in certain areas regularly as per study of CGWA and, therefore, a Rational Policy has to be adopted so as to make water available to cope up the need of society, and simultaneously, preserving water for further generation by preventing wastage of preventable use based on the principle of "sustainable development". It was also noticed that problem of depletion of ground water was not limited to Delhi or NCR but needs be considered for entire country and effective enforcement of regulatory measures PAN India, particularly, in respect of semi-critical, critical and over-exploited areas. Draft Guidelines 2015 were also referred. Tribunal did not find effective regulatory measures either on the part of CGWA or concerned Ministry, 328 hence, directed an expert from Ministry of Water Resources to remain present on next date with latest updates. Para 15 to 18 of order dated 26.07.2018 in Vikrant Kumar Tongad (supra) read as under:
"15. Certain Affidavits have been filed with regard to the inference about the extent of extraction of ground water. In its compliance report dated 31.05.2018 the Senior Town Planners, Department of Country Town and Planning, State of Haryana has suggested a formula for tentative calculation of water consumption for constructions which broadly is 0.75 kilo litre per sqm to 1 kilo litre per sqm. Actual requirement was found to be 2 kilo litre per sqm. for the building upto 20 stories if the number of storeys is more, the use of water per sqm. was more. On that basis it is suggested as follows:
Sr. No. Building/Tower Factors for Water
consumption (In Litres
per sqm. of build up
area)
1. Buildings upto 5 stories 750 litres per sqm.
2. Buildings 5 to 10 stories 1000 litres per sqm.
3. Buildings 10 to 20 stories 1500 litres per sqm.
4. Buildings above 20 stories 2000 litres per sqm.
16. When the matter taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the concern for ground water depletion is not limited to Delhi or NCR. This Tribunal may, instead of going into the issue limited to NCR region, consider various aspects of the said issue comprehensively including the existing mechanism for regulation of ground water extraction as well as recharge of ground water.
17. On the one hand there is the need for the water which is the basic necessity, on the other compulsion of restricting its use in view of the fact that the availability of water is inadequate and level of water is depleting atleast in certain areas as per the study of Central Ground Water Authority. The Policy has to be rational, meeting the basic need of everyone and at the same time preserving the water for the future generation by preventing wastage or preventable use based on the principle of Sustainable Development. Incidental to such policy is the issue of punitive measures and recovery of damages for those who have extracted ground water in the past who go on doing unauthorised/illegal extraction, leading to alarming depletion in the ground water. Further question will be steps to be taken to tap all relevant sources specially the rain water harvesting, persevering the water bodies etc.
18. Our attention has been drawn in this regard to the guidelines for the criteria for evaluation of proposal for extraction of ground water w.e.f. 16.11.2015. These guidelines provide for notified and non- notified areas depending upon the availability of water and criteria adopted for permitting extraction and the area where there is water scarcity. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that further guidelines have been prepared though the same may be at the draft stage.329
For this purpose, we may direct an Expert from Ministry of Water of Resources to remain present on the next date with the latest updates."
(Emphasis added)
358. In OA No. 176/2015 (supra), Tribunal on 28.08.2018, taking note of complaints of inaction of CGWA, and ineffective regulation of extraction of ground water in critical areas, observed:
"we are disappointed at the apathy shown by the CGWA. On the one hand the CGHWA has classified over-exploited, critical and semi-critical areas for regulation, on the other it has refused to regulate such areas on a specious plea that it is only concerned with the notified area. Being the Central Authority for the whole country under the binding mandate of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such apathy can hardly be appreciated and such pleas is against the concept of rule of law."
(Emphasis added)
359. Consequently, vide order dated 28.08.2018, Tribunal directed Ministry of Water Resources, in consultation with MoEF and Ministry of Agriculture, to forthwith review existing mechanism so as to ensure effective steps for conserving ground water, at least in areas which are over-exploited, critical and semi-critical. Tribunal further said, the policy framework should include monitoring mechanism with provision for coercive measures required, consistent with the directions of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra); policy must also provide for recovery of damages for illegal drawl of ground water; and damages should include penalty as well as environmental compensation.
360. On 29.08.2018, matter of Vikrant Kumar Tongad (supra) came up before Tribunal when it expressed its displeasure, for non-finalization of Guidelines, despite order of Supreme Court passed as long back as in 1996 in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra) pursuant whereto, CGWA was constituted by Government of India vide Notification dated 14.01.1997. Referring to all its earlier orders passed in Vikrant 330 Kumar Tongad (supra) and also in some other cases which came up before Tribunal later, namely OA No. 176/2015 (supra) and OA No. 484/2015, Shailesh Singh vs. Hotel the Oberoi Amarvilas & Other (order dated 28.08.2018), it was observed that CGWA has failed to perform its duty of coming out with clear rational policy for conserving ground water despite Supreme Court orders in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra). Tribunal also referred to its orders in OA No. 108/2013 (supra), OA No. 179/2013 (supra) and Appeal No. 67/2015, Apex Chambers of Commerce and Industries of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Others which pertained to Delhi Jal Board, wherein stand of Board was that for commercial packaging or supply, permission to abstract ground water would not be granted. Hence Tribunal by order dated 10.07.2018 prohibited such abstraction.
361. In another matter taken up on the same date i.e., 29.08.2018 i.e., OA No. 411/2018, M/s. A-One Mineral Water Industry vs. Central Ground Water Authority & Others, Tribunal deprecated and disapproved approach and working of CGWA including its Chairman and Administrator and required Secretary, MoEF&CC to look into the matter and report before Tribunal.
362. Several matters namely OA No. 59/2012 (supra), OA No. 108/2013 (supra), OA No. 179/2013 (supra), OA No. 176/2015 (supra), OA No. 484/2015 (supra), OA No. 327/2018, Shailesh Singh Vs Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Others., OA No. 115/2017, Shailesh Singh Vs. Central Ground Water Board & Others, OA No. 411/2118 (supra) and Appeal No. 67/2015 (supra) came up on 22.10.2018 when no progress was shown by the authorities before Tribunal, despite categorical orders passed earlier. Deprecating, Tribunal observed that the authorities are comfortably sleeping over the matter, and in spite of pendency, no concrete 331 steps were shown to have been taken by them. The matter was adjourned to 12.11.2018 directing Secretary, Water Resources, Govt. of India to remain personally present to show cause why action for defiance and non- compliance of Tribunal's order be not taken.
363. All these matters led by OA No. 59/2012 (supra) came up before Tribunal on 12.11.2018. In its order, Tribunal noticed that even in over- exploited, critical and semi-critical area, with or without permission underground water continued to be extracted on a specious plea that though critical, the area was not notified and thus, not regulated. Before Tribunal, CGWA sought to disown its responsibility stating that water is a subject matter of 'State' and, therefore, Central bodies have limited role. Similar defence taken before Supreme Court, by Government of India, was already negated in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of Inia & Others (1997) (supra), still CGWA repeated the same. This was deprecated by Tribunal. Various observations made by Tribunal, demonstrating failure of CGWA in functioning as per directions and observation of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra), in paras 3 to 8, read as under:
"3. As a result of the survey of the geographical areas in the country, over exploited, critical and semi critical areas have been declared. The CGWA had issued 2012 guidelines and thereafter prepared draft guidelines on 16.11.2015 which are pending finalization for the last three years. The Tribunal noticed that even in over exploited, critical and semi critical areas, with or without permission, underground water continues to be extracted on a specious plea that though critical the area was not declared notified and is, thus, not regulated. The CGWA has also sought to disown its responsibility by saying that the matter was State subject.
4. The Tribunal has passed several order prohibiting extraction of underground water for commercial purposes with or without permission. Mechanical condition of requiring recharge of the underground water, which does not actually happen, and on that basis permitting drawal of underground water for commercial purposes has been held to be unjustified.
5. The underground water has been found to be extracted for building construction, for bottling plants, for swimming pools, 332 threatening availability of the underground in over exploited, critical and semi critical areas specially in absence of adequate steps for rain water harvesting for recharge of the underground water.
6. The plea that industries are allowed to draw underground water against charges is ridiculous and beyond comprehension in over exploited, critical and semi critical areas. It is against the precautionary principle, sustainable development as well as inter generational equity principle. One may understand the drawal of underground for drinking purposes where no other source for such purpose exists but for no other purpose, much less the industrial purpose such drawal of underground water can be allowed with or without payment in such areas. The Tribunal has also noted that drawal of ground water in the catchment areas of rivers may affect e-flow of the rivers which in turn affect aquatic life and the river water quality.
7. We do appreciate the difficulties of the agriculturists but the option of providing alternative of use of treated sewage water etc. or switching over to less water consuming crops needs to be considered. Equally significant is the need for checking contamination of underground water by who are discharging untreated effluents in the earth or in the water bodies. Comprehensive planning and execution thereof on the subject with utmost priority is necessary and absence thereof has led to emergency situation in certain areas.
8. In several orders, we have noted the apathy of the Authorities in the last six years in neglecting the subject in breach of the trust reposed in such Authorities. It was this concern that led to our earlier observations and direction to require the presence of Secretary, Department of Water Resources in person. We have no information about steps taken in compliance of earlier directions, including action for illegal activities of the CGWA except a statement that the said Authority is ill equipped. If so, we do not know why? We note that presence of the said Secretary today and also affidavit filed before this Tribunal on 16.10.2018 to the effect that policy framework has been evolved and re-framing of policy guidelines are "under consideration" for reference to the Ministry of Law."
(Emphasis added)
364. Thereafter, CGWA came up with a new set of Guidelines, vide Notification S.O. 6140(E) dated 12.12.2018, published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary), of the same date, titled as "Guidelines to regulate and control ground water extraction in India". It was given effect from 01.06.2019 (hereinafter referred as 'Guidelines 2018').
365. Para 2 thereof stated that these Guidelines shall supersede all earlier guidelines issued by CGWA and will have PAN India applicability. 333
366. Para 2.1 referred those categories of users who were exempted from obtaining NOC for ground water abstraction and read as under:
"2.1. Exemptions
1. The following categories of users shall be exempted from obtaining NOC for ground water abstraction:
i. All users drawing/proposing to draw ground water through non-energized means (bucket & rope, hand pump, mhote etc.) ii. Individual households drawing/proposing to draw ground water from a single dug well/bore well/tube well through delivery pipe of up to 1" diameter iii. Agricultural users iv.Armed Forces Establishments during operational deployment or during mobilization in forward locations.
The following categories of users shall be granted exemption from the requirement of NOC for ground water withdrawal, subject to submission of particulars as per the proforma (Annexure III) to CGWA.
i. Strategic and operational infrastructure projects for Armed Forces ii. Defence Establishments and Paramilitary Forces Establishments iii. Government water supply agencies in safe and semi critical areas The agencies mentioned under Sl. Nos. i, ii and iii shall install digital water flow meters to monitor monthly ground water abstraction, construct observation wells (piezometers) equipped with Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLR) for regular monitoring of ground water levels if the proposed ground water extraction is > 10 m3/day. Data sharing mechanism will be the same as in Section 2.3.1.VII. They will also monitor ground water quality from the abstraction structures once in a year during the month of April/ May. Guidelines for construction of piezometer are given in Annexure IV. The ground water samples collected shall be analysed at an NABL accredited laboratory. The data on ground water abstraction, ground water levels and ground water quality shall be submitted to the concerned Regional Office of Central Ground Water Board on the web portal."
367. Para 2.2 deals with drinking and domestic use and said as under:
"2.2. Drinking & Domestic use Request for NOC shall be considered only in cases where the water supply department/agency concerned is unable to supply adequate amount of water in the area. For granting NOC for ground water withdrawal for drinking & domestic purposes, two broad categories identified are as follows:334
a) Individual households/connections
b) Infrastructure projects/industries/mining projects/water supply agencies/others"
368. Para 2.2.1 deals with the conditions and procedure for grant of NOC to individual household. Para 2.2.2 deals with infrastructure projects/industries/mining projects/public water supply agencies/ others requiring water only for drinking & domestic use. These paras 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 read as under:
"2.2.1. Individual households:
Individual houses drawing/ proposing to draw ground water through more than one functional bore well/tube well/dug well or drawing ground water through delivery pipe of more than 1" diameter from a single ground water abstraction structure shall be required to seek NOC for ground water withdrawal under this category. NOC for ground water extraction shall be granted subject to the following conditions:
i. Application for NOC shall be accompanied by the proof of ownership of household(s).
ii. NOC for new wells shall be granted only in such cases where public water supply system does not exist/water supply is inadequate.
iii. Applicant shall submit an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- confirming non/inadequate availability of public water supply.
iv. The NOC shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of issue or till such time public water supply is provided to the household, whichever is earlier. The applicant shall apply for renewal of NOC at least 90 days prior to expiry of its validity. v. The user shall install digital water flow meter on the tube well/ bore well /dug well and submit the data through the web-portal vi. The user shall submit ground water abstraction data through the web-portal.
vii. If the existing well becomes defunct within the validity period of NOC, the user can construct a replacement well under intimation to the Regional Director of CGWB. The defunct well shall be properly sealed as per guidelines given in Annexure V. viii. The owner shall implement roof top rain water harvesting as per the prevalent building bye laws. However, no recharge shall be undertaken in areas prone to water logging (water levels within 5 metres below ground level).
ix. The owner shall pay Water Conservation Fee based on quantum of ground water extraction as applicable (Refer Sub-section 2.6). x. The NOC shall become void in case of change in land use of the property/ water use. It will then become mandatory for the owner to apply for fresh NOC.
2.2.2. Infrastructure projects/ industries/ mining projects/ public water supply agencies/other requiring water only for drinking & domestic use.335
An indicative list of infrastructure projects to be considered under this category is given in Annexure VI. NOC for ground water withdrawal for drinking and domestic purpose only for infrastructure projects/ industry/ mining projects/water supply agencies/others will be granted based on the following conditions:
I. Application for NOC shall be accompanied by the following documents:
i) Approval in the form of Terms of Reference/Consent to Establish/Consent to Operate/License issued by the statutory bodies viz. Ministry of Environment, Forests& Climate Change (MoEF & CC) /State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA)/State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)/Urban/ Rural Development Authority/ Department of Industries or any other authority mandated by Central/State Government.
ii) Details of water requirement computed as per National Building Code, 2016 (Annexure VII), taking into account recycling/reuse of treated water for flushing etc. (in case of new buildings).
iii) Affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- by the applicant, confirming non/ inadequate availability of public water supply in case of users requiring ground water up to 10 m3/day for drinking/domestic use.
iv) Certificate of non-availability of water from government water supply agency in case of infrastructure project/industry/mine requiring ground water in excess of 10 m3/day for drinking/ domestic use.
v) Water quality data of bore well/tube well/dug well in respect of existing projects from NABL accredited laboratory. II. Use of recycled/ treated waste water for purposes like flushing, green belt etc. shall be mandatory for new projects requiring >12.5 m3/d of ground water.
III. NOC for new /existing wells shall be granted only in such cases where the required amount of water is not available from the public water supply system.
IV. If the existing well becomes defunct within the validity period of NOC, the user can construct a replacement well under intimation to CGWA on web portal. The defunct well shall be properly sealed (Refer Annexure V).
V. The proponent shall mandatorily install roof top rain water harvesting system in the project area, wherever the ground water level is deeper than 5 metres below ground level. 336 VI. The proponent shall pay Water Conservation Fee based on quantum of ground water extraction as applicable (Refer Sub- section 2.6).
VII. Installation of digital water flow meter (conforming to BIS standard) in the abstraction structure(s) shall be mandatory and intimation regarding the same shall be communicated to the CGWA within 30 days of grant of NOC through the web-portal. Monthly water meter reading shall be digitally recorded and reports of ground water abstraction shall be submitted through the web portal to CGWA.
VIII. Construction of purpose-built observation wells (piezometers) for monthly ground water level monitoring shall be mandatory for proponents drawing/ proposing to draw 10m3/day or more of ground water. Detailed guidelines for construction of piezometers are given in Annexure IV. Depth and zone of aquifer tapped in the piezometer should be commensurate with that of the pumping well.
IX. Installation of Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLR) in the observation well shall be mandatory for projects requiring ground water from 50 to less than 500 m3/day in safe and semi critical assessment units and 20 to less than 200 m3/day in critical and overexploited assessment units. The list of safe, semi critical, critical, overexploited and saline assessment units is available at www.noc-cgwb.gov.in.
X. For projects requiring ground water extraction of 500 m3/day or more in safe and semi critical assessment units and 200 m3/day or more in critical and overexploited assessment units, installation of DWLR with telemetry in the observation well shall be mandatory. The data server shall be maintained by the supplier of the instrument and access will be provided to CGWA through the web portal. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide user ID and password to the above agency.
XI. Monthly water level data shall be submitted to CGWA through the web portal.
XII. All proponents shall monitor quality of ground water from the abstraction structure(s). Water samples from borewells/ tube wells / dug wells shall be collected during April/May every year and analyzed from NABL accredited laboratories for basic parameters (cations and anions), heavy metals, pesticides/ organic compounds etc. Water quality data shall be made available to CGWA through the web portal.
XIII. The NOC shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date of issue or till such time public water supply is provided to the project area, whichever is earlier.
XIV. The proponent/ authorized representative of the occupants of the infrastructure project shall apply for renewal of NOC at least 90 days prior to expiry of its validity."
337
369. The indicative list of "Infrastructure projects" governed by para 2.2.2, as mentioned in annexure VI to the Guidelines 2018, referred to:
residential apartment, Residential township, Office building, School College, University, Industrial Area (Drinking use), SEZ (Drinking use), Metro Station, Railway Station, Bus Depot, Airport, Seaport, Highway infrastructure, Fire station, Warehouse, Business Plaza, Malls & Multiplex, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Water Park/Theme Park/Amusement Park, Resort, Hotel/Restaurant/Food Plaza, Holiday home/Guest house, Banquet Hall/Marriage Gardens, IT Complex, Logistics & Cargo, Clubs and Trade Centre.
370. Para 2.3 deals with industrial/mining/infrastructure projects and separate conditions are provided for industries, mining projects and infrastructure projects and the conditions are as under:
"2.3 Industrial/ Mining/ Infrastructure projects All industries/ mining/ infrastructure projects, whether existing/ new/ under expansion and drawing/ proposing to draw ground water through energized means shall need to obtain NOC for ground water withdrawal from the Central Ground Water Authority.
2.3.1 Industries NOC to industries shall be granted only for such cases where government agencies are not able to supply the desired quantity of water. The applications for NOC shall be considered as per the criteria given below.
I. Application for NOC shall be accompanied by the following documents:
i) Approval in the form of Terms of Reference/ Consent to Establish/ License issued by statutory bodies viz. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) or State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) or State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA) or Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) or Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) or Department of Industries or any other authority mandated by Central or State Government.
ii) A valid Consent to Operate issued by the Industry Department/ Pollution Control Board/ copy of application submitted for renewal of Consent to Operate.338
iii) Certificate regarding non/partial availability of fresh water/treated waste water supply from the concerned government agency in cases where requirement of ground water is more than 10 m3/day.
iv) An affidavit on nonjudicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- regarding non availability of water supply from government agencies in cases where ground water requirement is up to 10 m3/day.
v) Water quality data of bore well/tube well/dug well in respect of existing industries from NABL accredited laboratory.
II. Hydrogeological report prepared by NABET accredited consultant shall be mandatory for users drawing/ proposing to draw ground water to the tune of 2000 m3/day or more in safe assessment units, 1500 m3/day or more in semi critical and critical assessment units and 1000 m3/day or more in over-exploited assessment units. Pro-forma for hydrogeological report is given in Annexure VIII. Installation of digital water flow meter (conforming to BIS standard) in the abstraction structure(s) shall be mandatory and intimation of the same shall be communicated to the CGWA through the web portal within 30 days of grant of NOC. III. Monthly water flow meter readings shall be recorded and reports of ground water extraction shall be submitted to CGWA through the web portal.
IV. Industries shall minimize the use of fresh ground water through recycling and reuse of waste water.
V. All industries abstracting ground water to the tune of 500 m3/day or more in safe and semi critical and 200 m3/day or more in critical and over-exploited assessment units shall be required to undertake water audit (Annexure IX) through CII/ FICCI/ NPC certified auditors and submit report within three months of completion of the same to CGWA through the web portal. The first audit shall be done within a year of grant of NOC. Subsequent audits shall be conducted once in 3 years for Safe/Semi critical assessment units and once in 2 years in critical/over-exploited assessment units. VI. Construction of observation well(s) (piezometers) within the premises, for monthly ground water level monitoring, shall be mandatory for industries drawing/ proposing to draw more than 10 m3/day of ground water. Depth and aquifer zone tapped in the piezometer shall be commensurate with that of pumping well/ wells. The number of observation wells (piezometers) shall be specified in the No Objection Certificate. Detailed guidelines for construction of piezometers are given in Annexure IV. Monthly water level data shall be submitted to the CGWA through the web portal. VII. Industries drawing/proposing to draw ground water from 50 to less than 500 m3/day in safe and semi critical assessment units and those drawing/proposing to draw 20 to less than 200 m3/day of ground water in critical and over-exploited assessment units shall install digital water level recorder (DWLR) in the observation well for continuous monitoring of ground water levels. Depth to water levels shall be monitored at 12 hour intervals 339 and the DWLR data shall be retrieved and submitted to CGWA through the web portal.
VIII. Industries drawing/proposing to draw ground water to the tune of 500 m3/day or more in safe and semi critical areas and 200 m3/day or more in critical and over-exploited areas would be required to install DWLR with telemetry in the observation well for continuous monitoring of ground water levels. The server will be maintained by the supplier of the instrument and access shall be provided to CGWA. It shall be the responsibility of the proponent to provide User ID and password to the CGWA.
IX. All industries shall monitor quality of ground water from the abstraction structure(s). Water samples from bore wells/tube wells/dug wells shall be collected during April/May every year and analysed from NABL accredited laboratories for basic parameters (cations and anions), heavy metals, pesticides/organic compounds etc. Water quality data shall be made available to CGWA through the web portal.
X. All industries except those falling in red and orange categories as per CPCB (list available on http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/Latest_118_Final_Directions .pdf) shall implement roof top rain water harvesting within six months of grant of NOC. Recharge of harvested water shall not be permitted in areas prone to water logging (water level within 5 m.bgl). XI. Industries shall deposit Water Conservation Fee (WCF) based on quantum of extraction as applicable (see Subsection 2.6). Industries which are not able to implement roof top rain water harvesting due to likely threat of pollution or any other valid reason shall be required to pay additional water conservation fee to compensate for the quantum of water that could have been recharged by the unit.
XII. NOC shall be valid for a period of 3 years in safe and semi critical areas and 2 years in critical and overexploited areas. XIII. The applicant shall apply for renewal of NOC at least 90 days prior to expiry of its validity.
XIV. Industries which are likely to cause ground water pollution e.g. Tanning, Slaughter Houses, Dye, Chemical/Petrochemical, Coal washeries, other hazardous units etc. (as per CPCB list) need to undertake necessary measures to ensure prevention of ground water pollution (Annexure X).
XV. Recharge/ injection of treated/untreated waste water within/ outside the plant premises is strictly prohibited. XVI. Existing industries, which have already obtained NOC and have implemented recharge measures as specified in the NOC, shall be exempted from paying WCF. However, if the industry is going for expansion, WCF will have to be paid for the additional quantum of ground water withdrawal as per applicable rates. 340 XVII. Existing industries, which have obtained NOC and adopted pond/ponds but have not been able to implement the specified volume of recharge due to various reasons, shall have an option to de-adopt pond/ponds and pay WCF within six months of the effectiveness of these guidelines. If at the time of renewal it is observed that the industry has not been able to comply with the recharge condition specified in the NOC, the industry shall have to pay WCF in addition to the penalty as specified in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
XVIII. Wherever feasible, requirement of water for greenbelt (horticulture) shall be met from recycled/treated waste water. XIX. If an existing well becomes defunct within the validity period of NOC, the proponent shall construct a replacement well under intimation to the CGWA through the web portal. The defunct well shall be properly sealed (Annexure V).
XX. In case of change of ownership, new owner of the industry will have to apply for necessary changes in the NOC with documentary proof within 45 days of taking over possession of the premises. 2.3.2 Mining projects All existing as well as new mining projects need to obtain NOC for mine dewatering and/or ground water withdrawal through wells, if any, from Central Ground Water Authority. NOC for abstraction of ground water shall be granted subject to the following conditions:
I. Application for NOC shall be accompanied by the following documents:
i) Approval from statutory bodies viz. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF & CC) or State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) or State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA).
ii) Certified mine lease map.
iii) Document showing ownership/ lease of land.
iv) Mining plan approved by the concerned Govt. agency/ department.
v) Comprehensive report prepared by NABET accredited consultant on ground water conditions in both core and buffer zones of the mine, depth wise and year wise mine seepage calculations, impact assessment of mining and dewatering, details of recycling, reuse and recharge, reduction of pumping with use of technology for mining and water management to minimize and mitigate the adverse impact on ground water, based on local conditions.
Format for report is given in Annexure VIII.
II. The water available from de-watering operations shall be put to gainful use such as water supply, irrigation, dust suppression, mining process etc. 341 III. Installation of digital water flow meter (conforming to BIS standard) in the abstraction structure(s) shall be mandatory and intimation of the same shall be communicated to the CGWA through the web portal.
IV. Water flow meter reading shall be digitally recorded and submitted to the CGWA through the web portal.
V. The proponent shall have to pay WCF based on quantum of ground water extraction as applicable (see Subsection 2.6). VI. Construction of observation well(s) (piezometers) within the premises along the periphery, for monthly ground water level monitoring, shall be mandatory for mines drawing/proposing to draw more than 10 m3/day of ground water. Depth and aquifer zone tapped in the piezometer shall be commensurate with that of pumping well/wells. The number of observation wells (piezometers) shall be specified in the No Objection Certificate. Detailed guidelines for construction of piezometers are given in Annexure IV. Monthly water level data shall be submitted to the CGWA through the web portal. VII. Proponents drawing/proposing to draw ground water from 50 to less than 500 m3/day in safe and semi critical assessment units and those drawing/proposing to draw 20 to less than 200 m3/day of ground water in critical and over-exploited assessment units shall install digital water level recorder (DWLR) in the observation well(s) for continuous monitoring of ground water levels. Depth to water levels shall be monitored at 12 hour intervals and the DWLR data shall be retrieved and submitted to the CGWA through the web portal. VIII Proponents drawing/proposing to extract ground water to the tune of 500m3/day or more in safe and semi critical areas and 200 m3/day or more in critical and over-exploited areas would be required to install DWLR with telemetry in the observation well for continuous monitoring of ground water levels. The server will be maintained by the supplier of the instrument and access shall be provided to CGWA. It shall be the responsibility of the proponent to provide User ID and password to CGWA.
IX. In addition, the proponent shall monitor ground water levels by establishing key wells in the core and buffer zones as specified in the NOC.
X. All mining units shall monitor quality of ground water from the abstraction structure(s). Water samples from bore wells/tube wells / dug wells shall be collected during April/May every year and analyzed from NABL accredited laboratories for basic parameters (cations and anions), heavy metals, pesticides/organic compounds etc. Water quality data shall be made available to the CGWA through the web portal.
XI. The NOC shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of issue of NOC.
XII. The proponent shall apply for renewal of NOC at least 90 days prior to expiry of its validity.
342 2.3.3 Infrastructure projects requiring dewatering or use of ground water for construction New infrastructure projects/residential buildings may require dewatering during construction activity and/or use ground water for construction. In both cases, applicants shall seek NOC from CGWA before commencement of work. The NOC will be granted subject to the following conditions:
I. Application for NOC shall be accompanied by the following documents:
i) Approval letter from statutory bodies viz. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) or State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) or State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA) or Urban/Rural/Area Development Authority.
ii) In cases where dewatering of more than 100 m3/day is required, hydrogeological report prepared by NABET accredited consultant on the ground water situation in the area giving detailed plan of pumping, proposed usage of pumped water and comprehensive impact assessment of the same on the ground water regime. The report should highlight environmental risks and proposed management strategies to overcome any significant environmental issues.
iii) An affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- regarding non availability of water from any other source for construction in safe and semi critical areas.
iv) Certificate from the government agency regarding non availability of treated sewage water for construction within 10 km radius of the site in critical and over-exploited areas.
II. The proponent shall be required to adopt roof top rain water harvesting in the project premises after completion of building construction. Recharge measures shall not be implemented in areas prone to water logging (water level within 5 metres below ground level).
III. The proponent will have to pay WCF based on quantum of ground water extraction as applicable (see Sub-section 2.6). IV. Proponent shall be required to carry out regular monitoring as mentioned below:
Parameter to be monitored Frequency Submission to the CGWA Dewatering discharge rate Continuous Through the web-
(using a digital water flow meter) portal Water levels in the surrounding Fortnightly Through the web-portal area by constructing observation wells (piezometers) in consultation with the concerned Regional Office of CGWB 343 Monitoring records and results should be retained by the proponent for up to two years, for inspection or reporting as required by CGWA.
V. NOC shall be valid for the specific period as per the detailed proposal submitted by the project proponent."
371. Para 2.4 deals with agriculture sector and said that it shall be exempted from obtaining NOC for ground water withdrawal but placed responsibility upon concerned State Governments to undertake sustainability of ground water source. Para 2.5 deals with the abstraction of saline/contaminated ground water. It is said that abstraction of saline/contaminated ground water for use by industries/ dewatering by infrastructure/mining projects including those located in over-exploited areas would be encouraged. The list of such assessment units having saline ground water at all depths as per the latest assessment of dynamic ground water resources will be made available by the Authority in the web-
based application system. Packaged drinking water units shall be encouraged to be set up in quality affected areas. All precautions must be taken for protection of environment, especially fresh water aquifers in and around the area. Other conditions for granting NOC would be the same as mentioned in Para 2.3 for industries and infrastructure projects, respectively. Some additional conditions were provided which we are omitting being non-relevant at this stage. Para 2.6 is a provision for Water Conservation Fee (hereinafter referred to as 'WCF'), made in compliance of Tribunal's order dated 13.07.2017 in OA No. 200/2014 dealing with Ganga matter, wherein it was observed that all users must be required to pay for ground water extraction. The rates of WCF were claimed to have been determined by CGWA after considering factors namely, i) Cost of implementation of rainwater harvesting/artificial recharge structures by industries/infrastructure units/mines which have been mandated to implement the same as per NOCs granted earlier; and ii) charges being 344 levied by various State Governments for use of surface water by industries.
372. On 18.12.2018, leading cases OA 176/2015 (supra) and OA 59/2012 (supra) came up before Tribunal along with OA 108/2013 (supra), OA 179/2013 (supra), OA 484/2015 (supra), OA 327/2018 (supra), OA 115/2017 (supra), OA No. 411/2118 (supra), OA 613/2017, Mohd. Javed Asghar vs. M/s Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. (Distillery Unit) & Others and OA 614/2017, Mohd. Javed Asghar vs. State of U.P. & Others and Appeal 67/2015 (supra). After hearing, order was uploaded on 03.01.2019. Entire historical background and also litigation going on in Tribunal, in respect of massive abstraction of ground water and failure of statutory body like CGWA in effective regulation, consistent depletion of ground water level worsening the condition, was noticed and then Tribunal also examined Guidelines 2018. Deprecating the same, in para 22 to 27 of order dated 03.01.2019, Tribunal said:
"20. It is clear from the above that, rather than laying down stricter norms for extraction of ground water for commercial purposes and putting in place a robust institutional mechanism for surveillance and monitoring, extraction of ground water has been liberalized adding to the crisis unmindful of the ground situation and likely impact it will have on environment. No data has been furnished to justify the policy reversal by way of uncontrolled liberalized drawal of groundwater in OCS areas.
21. The provisions of the impugned notification show that drawal of ground water has been, for all practical purposes, made unregulated in all areas, including the OCS areas.
22. The so called regulation is illusory. The so called conditions are incapable of meaningful monitoring, as shown by past experience also
23. The water conservation fee virtually gives licence to harness ground water to any extent even in OCS areas.
24. There is no institutional mechanism to monitor removal and replenishment of ground water.
25. Delegation provision is virtual abdication of authority.345
26. There is no check on injection of pollutants in the ground water in the impugned notification. There is no provision with regard to check on water quality and its remediation, if there is contamination.
27. We are satisfied that the Notification dated 12.12.2018 tested on the Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development as well as Inter-generational Equity Principles is unsustainable in law and instead of conservation of ground water which is necessary for providing access to drinking water in OCS areas, as well also other needs of environment, including sustenance of rivers and other water bodies, it will result in fast depletion of ground water and damage to water bodies and will be destructive of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
(Emphasis added)
373. Consequently, Tribunal directed not to implement said Notification. Its direction in para 28, reads as under:
"28. Accordingly, the impugned Notification may not be given effect to in view of serious shortcomings as pointed above so that an appropriate mechanism can be introduced consistent with the needs of environment."
(Emphasis added)
374. Tribunal directed MoEF&CC to constitute an Expert Committee by including representatives from IIT Delhi, IIT Roorkee, IIM Ahmedabad, CPCB, NITI Ayog and any other concerned agency or department to examine the issue of appropriate policy for conservation of ground water with a robust institutional mechanism for surveillance and monitoring, with a view to enhance access to ground water for drinking purposes in OCS (over exploited, critical and semi-critical) areas by way of appropriate replenishment practices which can be properly accounted and measured for, as well as to sustain floodplains of rivers in terms of e- flow and other water bodies. Giving this direction in para 29 of the judgment, Tribunal directed MoEF&CC and also Ministry of Water Resources to finalize the issue of subject, inter-se, with regard to ground water reserve and its quality. Committee was to be constituted in two weeks and report was directed to given by Committee in two months. Committee was also required to indicate projection of its impact 346 study in the light of projected data for next 50 years (in phased manner with action plan for each decade). Thereafter, the concerned Ministry was to issue fresh guidelines and submit report to Tribunal on or before 30.04.2019. In para 32, Tribunal directed CPCB to constitute a mechanism to deal with individual cases of violations of norms, as existed prior to Notification of 12.12.2018, to determine the environment compensation to be recovered or other coercive measures to be taken, including prosecution, for past illegal extraction of ground water, as per law. Tribunal further said that all the matters related to illegal extraction of ground water by individuals are disposed of with these directions.
375. Thus, vide order dated 03.01.2019, all individual matters relating to extraction of ground water illegally, stood disposed of. However, when the matters were next listed on 07.05.2019, Tribunal found that MoEF&CC has failed to perform its duty, and directions, issued by Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2019, were not complied. In fact, Committee required to be constituted within two weeks, was actually constituted only on 29.03.2019. Tribunal deprecated it and said:
"We do not appreciate such attitude of Government departments when under a statutory enactment, violation of orders of this Tribunal is a criminal offence. The Committee has not acted promptly and no significant progress has been brought to our notice. Lack of sensitivity of serious issues of environment such as fast depleting ground water is a matter of concern."
376. Having said so, Tribunal directed Committee to submit report positively by 30.06.2019, failing which Joint Secretary concerned of MoEF&CC was directed to remain present to explain as to why action be not taken for violation of Tribunal's orders. Further, report dated 30.04.2019 submitted by CPCB vide e-mail, was also considered wherein it had taken the stand that assessment of environmental compensation for 347 illegal extraction of ground water has been done. This report was not accepted by Tribunal, giving following reasons:
"i. The OCS areas which need regulation for conservation of ground water cannot be further treated separately as notified or non-notified. Conservation of ground water in the said areas is of equal necessity. Depletion of ground water in the said areas affects the sub-terranean flow and results in contamination of ground water and also poses a potential danger for drying up of important natural resource in violation of established principle of 'Intergenerational Equity'. ii. The compensation to be recovered for illegal extraction has to be deterrent specially when it is for commercial or industrial purpose and linked to the quantum of ground water extracted and the period for which such extraction takes place.
iii. Scenario analysis with robust scientific logic is required for all the classes considered in comparable terms which has not been done in the present report."
377. CPCB was directed to submit fresh report on or before 30.06.2019.
378. Referring to ground water development on the basis of Guidelines 2015 for existing industries, infrastructure in the said mining projects, Tribunal said that it did not find any safeguards suggested to address the concern, earlier expressed against depleting ground water. It further held:
"The mandate of CGWA is not exploitation of ground water in depleted areas but to conserve it. Any policy which results in further depletion obviously cannot be permitted in OCS areas. CGWA is free to lay down and follow stringent norms to ensure that there is no depletion of ground water in OCS areas and depleted water level is improved and replenished. Any policy has to be in that direction and not in reverse direction as is unfortunately being attempted by CGWA, as noticed in earlier orders."
379. Tribunal also observed that MoEF&CC must come up with an appropriate policy. Strangely, MoEF&CC took the plea that CGWA has not cooperated, which has caused delay. This stand was denied by CGWA. In this situation, Tribunal observed that the fact remains that failure is on the part of both. Entrusted with the responsibility of protecting ground water, CGWA and all other Authorities must cooperate and collaborate in the exercise to come out with a policy which must result in checking 348 further depletion of ground water and enhance replenishment. Tribunal directed concerned Secretaries to monitor compliance of directions, having regard to the importance of the issue.
380. Mistakenly, Registry failed to notice that individual matters were already disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2019, and thus, should not have listed on 07.05.2019, except the matter relating to status of compliance of directions of Supreme Court in NGT, to check depletion of ground water level in the country. This mistake occurred on 23.08.2019 also.
381. In the meantime, pursuant to order dated 03.01.2019 and 07.05.2019, MoEF&CC filed affidavit on 18.07.2019. Report of CPCB dated 26.06.2019 was also filed. Both these were taken into consideration on 23.08.2019 and order of Tribunal was uploaded on 11.09.2019.
382. The listing of disposed matter was noticed by Tribunal in the order dated 11.09.2019, hence, it was clarified that all the above matters be treated to be disposed of and shall be dealt with by concerned Regulatory Authority in accordance with law. The relevant extract of order dated 11.09.2019 passed in OA 59/2012 (MA 34/2016 & MA 190/2016) (supra), OA 108/2013 (supra), OA 179/2013 (supra), Appeal No. 67/2015 with MA 107/2019 (supra), OA 176/2015 (supra), OA No. 484/2015 (supra), OA 327/2018 (supra), OA 115/2017 (supra), OA 411/2018 (supra), OA 613/2017 (supra) and OA 614/2017 (supra), reads as under:
"These matters involve the issue of conservation of ground water.
Vide order dated 03.01.2019 in O.A. No. 176/2015, this Tribunal directed as follows:
"32. The CPCB may constitute a mechanism to deal with individual cases of violations of norms, as existed prior to Notification of 349
12.12.2018, to determine the environment compensation to be recovered or other coercive measures to be taken, including prosecution, for past illegal extraction of ground water, as per law. All the matters relating to illegal extraction of ground water by individuals are disposed of with these directions." In view of above, the above matters having been disposed of were wrongly listed on 07.05.2019 and on 23.08.2019. The same be treated and disposed of and may be dealt with by the concerned regulatory authorities in accordance with law. The report of CPCB dated 26.06.2019 may be following on the subject of assessment of recovery of compensation for illegal drawl of ground water apart from prosecution and stoppage of illegal drawl of ground water in accordance with law."
383. A separate order in OA 176/2015 (supra) (MA 133/2015) was uploaded on the issue of conservation of ground water. Considering the said issue, Tribunal found that the report was deficient on the issue of prevention or depletion of ground water and the same was not addressed at all. No effective enforcement mechanism of conditions, subject to which ground water extraction may be allowed in OCS areas, was provided. Mere condition of recharge without clear strategy of enforcement was not found appropriate and adequate safeguard, for permitting extraction of ground water. The report left many issues for being considered. Some aspects of the report were considered in paras 20 and 21 of the order dated 11.09.2019 passed in OA 176/2015 (supra), which read as under:
"20. The report of CPCB dated 26.06.2019 deals with methodology for assessing environmental compensation (EC), Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGw) which has been further dealt with in different categories, i.e. ECRGw for Drinking & Domestic use for household purposes and those for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc., ECRGw for Packaged Drinking Water Units, ECRGw for Mining, Infrastructure and Dewatering Projects, ECRGw for Industrial Units, Deterrent factors to compensate losses and environmental damage (for packaging drinking water units, mining, industrial and commercial purposes) and Deterrent Factor . Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water is as follows:
"5. Formula for Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water The committee recommended that the formula considering water consumption, no. of days, rates for imposing Environmental Compensation based on the purpose for illegal 350 abstraction of ground water as well as the deterrent factor detailed below:
ECGw= Water consumption per day x Environmental Compensation rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGw) x No. of Days x Deterrent Factor Where, water consumption is in m3/day and ECRGw in Rs/m3 All other details can be seen from the report which is available on the website of CPCB. The report also gives recommendations as follows:
21. The committee has given following recommendations:
1. In case of fixation of liability, it always lies with current owner of the premises where illegal extraction of groundwater is taking place.
2. Violation duration may be assumed as at least one year in case where no evidence for period of installation of borewell could be established.
3. For illegal industrial ground water abstraction, where metering system is not available, water consumption may be estimated as per consent conditions imposed by SPCB/PCC.
4. Water intensive industries should only be permitted in safe, semi-critical and critical area, and should not be allowed to establish new industries in overexploited area.
5. Water in over-exploited area should be permitted only for drinking purposes and industries established in this area without prior consent or NOC from CGWA or another concerned department must be closed down with immediate effect. No expansion in existing industrial activity should be permitted, irrespective of additional water demand arises or not.
6. Present categorization of area (Over-exploited, Critical and Semi-Critical), as per CGWA shall be considered for calculation of EC, regardless of the area category when the period of violation started.
7. In case of all existing cases having more than 5000 KLD ground water demand, permission may be given only after examining scientific assessment of water availability and assessing intergenerational equity by CGWA.
8. The industrial units should be directed to adopt State of the Art technologies, use of surface water, treated waste water and reduce specific water consumption, thereby ground water demand is reduced by 10% over three years' period. The industries also be encouraged to create facilities for storage of excess storm water and adequate measures such 351 as groundwater recharge as well as restoration of lakes/ponds in the vicinity of the industry.
9. In addition, all repeated violations will attract EC at 1.25 times the previous EC.
10. Authorities assigned for levy EC and taking penal action are listed below:
S. Actions Authority
No.
1. To seal illegal borewell/tube- District Magistrate
well to stop extraction of water
and further closure of project
2. To levy ECGw as per District
prescribed method Magistrate/CGWA
3. To levy EC on industries CPCB/SPCB/PCC
involved in illegal abstraction of
Groundwater,
as per the method prescribed in
report of CPCB-"EC for
industrial units"
4. Prosecution of Violator CGWA under
Environment
(Protection) Act,1986
(or)
SPCB/PCC under
Water (Prevention
and Control of
Pollution), Act, 1974
384. Tribunal then constituted another Committee comprising of Joint Secretary, MoEF&CC, concerned Joint Secretary, MoWR, CGWB, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, National Remote Sensing Center, Hyderabad and CPCB to go into the following questions:
"(a) Steps required to be taken for preventing depletion of ground water.
(b) Robust monitoring mechanism to ensure that no ground water is unauthorizedly extracted, including review of manning and functioning of CGWA.
(c) Robust mechanism to monitor conditions laid down for grant of permission for extraction of ground water.
(d) Recommendations in the report of the CPCB dated 26.06.2019 referred to above."
385. Tribunal, however, accepted report of CPCB with regard to compensation as an interim arrangement and directed that the same may be acted upon by Regulatory Authorities and compensation be recovered 352 from violators, for the period of violation, which may be assessed on case to case basis. Further, Tribunal said that report of CPCB that water intensive industries can be allowed even in semi-critical and critical area without any further safeguards, may not be acted upon, till further orders.
386. The association of Industrial Manufactures, Ghaziabad filed I.A. No. 640/2019 in OA No. 176/2015 (supra), seeking review of order dated 11.09.2019 on the ground that order has caused prejudice to them, hence needs reconsideration. This I.A. was considered on 10.10.2019 and rejecting the same, in para 6, Tribunal said:
"6. Since the OCS areas have been found to be seriously affected by over-drawl of ground water, regulation of such drawl for commercial purposes cannot be dispensed with for any industry even in industrial area. Availability of water for drinking is a first priority. The 'Precautionary' principle, 'Sustainable Development' principle and the Inter-generational equity are part of life and in absence of replenishment of ground water, unregulated drawl thereof cannot be held to be right of any commercial entity. Shortage of availability of water for commercial purposes cannot be remedied by drawl of groundwater in over exploited, critically exploited and semi-critical exploited (OCS) areas. Water is certainly a scarce resource and the industry has to put up with such scarcity. It is for the industry and the concerned authorities to find out alternative ways and means for sustenance of the industries instead of permitting indiscriminate drawl of groundwater in such areas till situation improves. Alternative means may be shifting to areas where water is not scarce or to processes where water is not required. As already noted, groundwater is depleting in such areas and measures are required to check such depletion. If industries continue to draw ground water without NOC from CGWA as per current guidelines and orders of this Tribunal in OCS areas, the industries will have to face legal consequence of such illegal action."
387. As per directions contained in order dated 11.09.2019, report submitted on 16.03.2020 was placed before Tribunal along with OA No. 176/2015 (supra) on 13.07.2020. It was brought to the notice of Tribunal that illegal extraction of ground water is neither being effectively checked nor there is any recovery of compensation from defaulters. In an article, published in "Times of India", dated 06.06.2017, it was stated that four 353 crore litres of water was being illegally extracted in Gurgaon daily. Similar complaints of huge quantity of ground water extraction by tanker mafias were reported in NCT of Delhi which require constant action by Regulatory Authorities and robust mechanism for effective review. A news item was published in daily newspaper "Tribune", on 15.07.2020, under the title "Decline in water table caused crack in Mahendragarh Field: Experts". Drying of main rivers including Ganga due to depletion of ground water, water bodies running dry at alarming rate and extraction of ground water resulting in fall of water table beyond the level of replenishment, various studies and articles published in different magazines of repute etc. were considered by Tribunal in its order uploaded on 20.07.2020. In respect of State of Uttar Pradesh, in particular, district Gautam Buddha Nagar, Tribunal considered complaint of fast depletion of ground water due to large scale extraction by various commercial entities, including hotels in Ghaziabad, Moradabad and Agra etc. Giving reference of earlier orders passed from time to time, including order dated 03.01.2019, Tribunal observed that preparation of Guidelines, without studying "Impact Assessment" would be against the principle of "sustainable development". The principal vulnerable features, on account whereof Guidelines 2018 were criticized and Regulatory Authorities were directed not to give effect to it, were noted in para 15 of judgment dated 20.07.2020, as under:
"15. In its order of 03.01.2019, the Tribunal disapproved the notification, holding that ultimately, it is the result of all the measures, shown by the data on the ground, which has to be the basis of any policy and not just laying down of measures. It was observed that the notification granted exemptions in OCS areas without having regard to the impact on groundwater, or a roadmap for controlling the falling ground level. Doing so without impact assessment was against sustainable development.
Some further vulnerable features of the notification were noted as follows:
i. Exemption of individual households to draw ground water from single dug well/bore well/tube well through delivery pipe of upto 354 1" diameter and certain other categories, even if there is an existing supply of drinking water.
Beyond the said exemption, ground water withdrawal can be permitted on the basis of NOC where water supply is not adequate subject to certain conditions.
ii. Infrastructural projects including water supply agencies could be allowed to get NOC and the said industries are in Annexure- VI."
388. Tribunal said that Guidelines had to show an application of mind as to how the Policy adopted by Regulatory Authorities would prevent extraction of water beyond desired level in OCS areas. Tribunal also noted its order dated 07.05.2019, considering CPCB report dated 30.04.2019, with regard to compensation regime, which was found unsatisfactory and CPCB was directed to give a fresh report observing that compensation to be recovered for illegal extraction has to be deterrent, especially when it is for commercial or industrial purpose, and should be linked to the quantum of ground water extraction and period for which such extraction takes place. It was also observed that scenario analysis with robust scientific logic is required for all the classes considered in comparable terms. Tribunal considered affidavit dated 16.03.2020, filed by CGWA for Ministry of Jal Shakti, and pointed out that Committee report annexed to the affidavit continues to be entirely unsatisfactory. The observations made in para 24 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, are:
"24. The matter is being taken up in continuation of order dated 11.09.2019. We have heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing for MoJS and CGWA, We have considered the CGWA affidavit dated 16.3.2020 filed for MoJS which annexes the report of the Committee purporting to be in compliance of Tribunal order dated 11.9.2019. The situation continues to be entirely unsatisfactory. Several issues in the report are same which were rejected in the order dated 3.1.2019. The MoJS appears to be avoiding its Constitutional obligation of complying with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and repeated directions of this Tribunal. Surprisingly and regretfully, a wholly untenable prayer is made that the Tribunal should review its earlier orders, which have attained finality, never having been challenged. It is thus clear that there is no intent or effort to comply with the said orders. The report is not in compliance of this Tribunal's orders but rather, 355 largely violates the spirit of the said mandate. We proceed to record the reasons."
389. Several issues in the report were same as already rejected by Tribunal vide order dated 03.01.2019. Ministry of Jal Shakti was found avoiding its Constitutional obligation of complying with the judgment of Supreme Court and repeated directions of Tribunal. Observing that report was not in compliance of Tribunal's earlier orders, rather violates their spirit, Tribunal gave its reasons, in para 25 to 30, as under:
"25. The CGWA affidavit states that the restriction on extraction of groundwater in OCS areas is likely to have adverse impact on industrial production, employment opportunities and GDP of some States. It seeks vacation of the Tribunal order dated 03.01.2019, so as to issue NOCs for groundwater extraction as per proposed guidelines or as per 2015 guidelines.
26. As mentioned earlier, the report practically reiterates the regime earlier brought out on 12.12.2018, which was rejected by the Tribunal on 3.1.2019 being against sustainable development and mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not find it necessary to reproduce the report in extenso but refer to and comment upon the main aspects thereof.
a. The report states at the outset, contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment:
"Water being a State subject, initiatives on water management including conservation and water harvesting in the Country is primarily States' responsibility. Further, to supplement the efforts of the State Governments, Government of India provides technical and financial assistance to encourage sustainable development and efficient management of water resources through various schemes and programmes."
However, as against the above stand, the report also mentions that the CGWA is vested with the regulation, control, management and development of groundwater in the country. It has issued guidelines (including the 2015 and the 2018 guidelines), and enumerated its various initiatives and policy decisions.
b. For the same reasons for which notification dated12.12.2018 was found unacceptable, the proposed recommendations, liberalizing groundwater extraction across the board to certain categories without any impact assessment and effective checks, are against law.
c. Exemptions for infrastructure projects, MSMEs or other industries or commercial purposes except drinking water, where supply is not otherwise available in water stressed areas, will be against sustainable development and public trust doctrine unless 356 individual impact assessment is conducted and permitting such extraction found viable.
d. There has to be listing of priorities within available limited resources and unlimited demands and impact assessment of such activity and policy of permitting extraction has to be based on carrying capacity in the form of the water levels.
e. No road map has been provided how the new regime will check and neutralize falling ground water levels. There is neither a claim that in the last 24 years of regulation by the CGWA, ground water levels have improved, nor any projection for future improved. Data compiled by Niti Ayog in its report published in 2018 'composite water index' is clear evidence of over exploitation at several locations. Moreover, CGWA itself has conducted survey and identified 1868 out of 6585 assessment units as OCS areas. Its failure is in not having effective regulatory regime. There is no adequate implementation of conditions for drawal of ground water for commercial purposes. Such failure is shown by falling levels and news of mafias engaged in illegal drawal of ground water in OCS areas without effective check. Further liberalization will defeat the purpose of having CGWA and be contrary to the mandate of public trust doctrine. Effective steps for protecting ground water in OCS areas against singularly commercial considerations are critical.
f. The report observes:
"During the discussions, it was observed that ground water is a replenishable resource and the aquifer zones from which ground water is extracted gets replenished every year from rainfall and other sources. Therefore, there is a need to extract groundwater by various users including industries/agriculture needs in safe, semi-critical and critical areas as space is to be created in the aquifers for replenishment of water through rainfall/other sources. It is pertinent to mention here that in case we do not allow extraction of ground-water in these areas the precious rainfall may be lost through runoff as the void in aquifers may not be available for recharge purposes through rainfall.
In safe, semi-critical and critical areas, annual ground water withdrawal is less than the annual ground water recharge and in over-exploited areas, it exceeds annual recharge. In view of this„ the Committee was of the view that it may not be appropriate to club semi-critical and critical with over-exploited assessment units, provided necessary measures to compensate the ground water withdrawal are ensured and at no point groundwater extraction exceeds 100% of recharge. Hence, the committee was of the opinion that two broad categories of assessment units namely i) over-exploited and ii) critical, semi-critical & safe be considered for framing the guidelines. Stricter regulatory regime was suggested for over-exploited assessment units to avoid further deterioration."
We find the statement that withdrawal to the extent of replenishment must be done to avoid wastage of rain water is 357 contradicted by continually falling levels of ground water in OCS areas. There is no question of wastage of rain water where water level is falling. In such areas, the withdrawal has to be reduced not only to the extent of replenishment but to enhance the ground water to safe and sustainable levels. Replenishment and raising of water level are both important in OCS areas. Falling groundwater levels dry up water bodies and reduce the flow of the rivers. CPCB website acknowledges 351 river stretches as polluted for reasons including non-availability of flow which prevents adequate dilution capacity. This affects the aquatic life, wildlife and food-chain and the entire eco- system.
g. The report states, under the heading 'action being taken for preventing depletion of groundwater and recharge':
"The focus of this report is therefore to create a balanced approach, with emphasis on demand side management and practical regulation that does not impede development. Committee was also apprised about the fact that Water being a State subject, initiatives on water management including conservation of ground water is primarily States' responsibility. However, Central government supplements the efforts of states Government through technical and financial assistance."
There is clear contradiction in mentioning need for balanced approach on the one hand and emphasis on the demand side. Such approach is against the mandate of 'Sustainable Development', including Precautionary principle, intra and inter- generational equity and 'public trust' doctrine. h. The report's recommendation under the heading 'Industry, Infrastructure and Mining projects' that extraction of groundwater by existing industries need not be checked as it may obstruct growth, is an argument against the principle of 'Sustainable Development'. There is no absolute right even of existing industries to continue to draw ground water without regard to depleting groundwater levels as held even in 2015. Such extraction cannot be at the cost of environment and ignoring intra and intergenerational, precautionary and sustainable development principles. Development and growth must be undertaken but not without ignoring the sustainable groundwater level. i. Recommendation for robust monitoring mechanism by restructuring CGWA, strengthening manpower having network upto District Level etc. may be looked into by the concerned authorities and action taken for implementation so as to ensure that there is effective regulatory mechanism as per the mandate of law. Our observations are same with regard to robust mechanism to monitor conditions laid down for grant of permission for extraction of groundwater. j. Recommendation in para 13.0, on quantum of compensation and action required against violators, are contrary to CPCB recommendations for closing down industries in over exploited areas for extracting groundwater illegally, and cannot be accepted. The present proposal is against stringent action against violators 358 committing criminal offence which cannot be appreciated. To regulate and control groundwater extraction in India, the overriding principle of carrying capacity has to apply to every category of commercial use of groundwater, including industrial use, mining projects, infrastructure projects. Compensation for unlawful groundwater extraction must be on the bases of restitution and deterrence. k. The water rates in para 6.0 of the report with regard to various categories including packaged water and beverages and mining infrastructure projects in OCS have to be in the nature of deterrent because groundwater extraction for such purposes is not permissible beyond carrying capacity. The proposed rates do not meet such test. Thus, unregulated drawal of water being a criminal offence under the law, compensation may be recovered as per CPCB report dated 26.06.2019 until any further appropriate mechanism is prepared. The 2015 CGWA guidelines and the MoEF report itself provides that groundwater extraction for commercial purposes was impermissible in OCS areas. Instead of moving in that direction, present proposal is in reverse direction which is not permissible.
27. In terms of the Tribunal's previous orders (dated 03.01.2019, Paras 29 and 31, and dated 11.09.2019, Para 24), the core issues that are required to be considered are:
a. Has a robust institutional monitoring mechanism been evolved i. To define 'assessment unit' - wise carrying capacity and accordingly set (a) target replenishment levels and (b) plan for permissible levels of extraction, of ground water levels in OCS areas;
ii. to assign individual target replenishment levels as a condition for granting extraction permits, and to audit such replenishment by those who are extracting groundwater; as well as to audit and measure actual carrying capacity periodically;
iii. to monitor real-time implementation of conditions for permitting extraction of ground water;
iv. to withdraw permits for extraction of ground water failing target replenishment levels; as well as v. to sustain the flow of rivers in terms of e-flows and sustain other water bodies?
b. Is there a provision for an impact study in light of projected data for the next 50 years (in phased manner with action plan decade-wise)?
c. Has an effective and measurable plan been prepared for preventing depletion and unauthorized extraction of ground water backed by requisite mechanism in the form of manning and effective functioning of CGWA so as to ensure sustainable ground water management in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate by which CGWA was created?359
d. Is the compensation regime against violators adequately deterrent?
28. The answer is 'no'. If implemented, the current report would nullify the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by seeking to deregulate ground water extraction, ignoring its impact on the e-flow of rivers, water bodies and overall sustainable management of scarce natural resources with emphasis on industrial development, without balancing development and environment. Irreversible damage cannot be allowed by extracting water beyond safe levels, without impact assessment.
29. We, thus, hold that as per mandate of sustainable development under Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010, which has been held to be part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the regulatory authority must direct its policy towards preventing further depletion of and upgrading the groundwater levels based on impact assessment. Extraction can neither be unregulated or allowed across the board without individual consideration. For this purpose, there is need to compile data by mapping all the assessment units individually in terms of current and estimated water level, drawal and replenishment and preparing a management plan for all such units. The CGWA being a statutory regulator for the country has to exercise overriding power in the form of statutory regulatory orders. It may have its own network and, to the extent found viable, utilize the network of existing Authorities like District Magistrates, Environment Departments, Departments of Irrigation and Public Health etc. The ground water assessment has to be done annually and placed on the respective websites of the Districts or States. Any extraction of groundwater has to be permitted keeping in mind availability of groundwater ensuring that there is no further depletion and ground water level remains at safe level.
30. At this stage, we may notice that the regulatory mechanism of the CGWA has not been adequate, as the report also notes.
CGWA does not appear to have requisite strength nor enforcement mechanism nor strategies. This may be one of the reasons for failure in effective monitoring, defeating the object of law. This has led to large number of petitions before this Tribunal pointing out that illegal groundwater extraction was rampant. The plans for rain water harvesting and many other steps to a great extent remain largely only on paper. Remedial measures need to be taken in view serious challenges in protection of groundwater level, to save rivers and water bodies and the entire chain of environment."
390. Thereafter, following directions were issued in para 39:
"Directions
39. In the light of the above discussion, we direct as follows:
a. MoJS may ensure requisite manning and effective functioning of CGWA so as to ensure sustainable ground water management in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mandate by which CGWA was created.360
b. Let CGWA and MoJS comply with the directions of this Tribunal in orders dated 3.1.2019, 7.5.2019 and 11.9.2019, to have a meaningful regulatory regime and institutional mechanisms for ensuring prevention of depletion and unauthorized extraction of ground water and sustainable management of groundwater in OCS areas. Regard must be had to water availability and safe levels to which its drawal can be allowed, especially for commercial purposes, based on available and assessed data in each "Assessment unit". Procedures for assessment of individual applications and institutional mechanism may be clearly laid down.
c. As per orders dated 3.1.2019, undertaking an impact study in light of projected data for the next 50 years (in phased manner with action plan decade-wise).
d. There must be no general permission for withdrawal of ground water, particularly to any commercial entity, without environment impact assessment of such activity on individual Assessment units in cumulative terms covering carrying capacity aspects by an expert committee. Such permission should as per Water Management Plans to be prepared in terms of this order based on mapping of individual assessment units. Any permission should be for specified times and for specified quantity of water and not in perpetuity, and be necessarily subject to digital flow meters which cannot be accessed by proponents, with mandatory annual calibration by authorized agency at proponents' cost. An annual review by independent and expert evaluation must audit and record ground water levels as well as compliance with the conditions of the permission. Such audits must be published online for transparency and to track compliance and year-on-year change in ground water levels, and swift action taken against those who fail audit, including withdrawal of permission, blacklisting, initiation of prosecution and recovery of deterrent compensation as per CPCB regime. Records must be maintained online and for a sufficient and reasonable time.
e. As observed in para 27(a) and 29(a) above, all OCS assessment units must undergo water mapping. Water Management Plans need to be prepared for all OCS assessment units in the country based on the mapping data, starting with Over-exploited blocks. The Water Management Plans, data on water availability or scarcity and policy of CGWA must be uploaded on its website for transparency and public involvement. Such exercise may be done expeditiously, preferably within next three months."
391. Interestingly, Ministry of Jal Shakti, after referring to earlier orders and order dated 20.07.2020, passed by Tribunal, issued a fresh notification dated 24.09.2020, published in Gazette of India 361 (Extraordinary) dated 24.09.2020, laying down Guidelines to regulate and control ground water extraction in India, in supersession of all earlier Guidelines issued by CGWA (hereinafter referred to as 'Guidelines 2020'). These Guidelines have come into force from the date of publication in the Gazette i.e., 24.09.2020. It further says that Guidelines shall have PAN- India applicability.
392. Guidelines 2020 says that Ground water abstraction in States/ UTs (which are not regulating ground water abstraction) shall continue to be regulated by CGWA. Further, wherever States/UTs have come out with their own ground water abstraction Guidelines, which are inconsistent with the CGWA Guidelines, the provisions of CGWA Guidelines will prevail. However, in case, Guidelines followed by such States/UTs contain some more stringent provisions than CGWA Guidelines, such provisions may also be given effect to, by the States/UTs Authorities, in addition to those contained in the CGWA Guidelines. States may be at liberty to suggest additional conditions/criteria based on the local hydro-geological situations which shall be reviewed by CGWA/Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India before acceptance. All new/existing industries, industries seeking expansion, infrastructure projects and mining projects abstracting ground water, unless specifically exempted under para 1.0 below, will be required to seek NOC from CGWA, or, the concerned State/UT Ground Water Authority, as the case may be. Guidelines 2020 said that water management plans shall be prepared by all State Ground Water Authorities/Organizations for all over-exploited, critical and semi- critical assessment units, starting with over-exploited units.
393. Para 1.0 of Guidelines 2020 deals with exemptions from seeking NOC. It is more or less similar to the earlier exemption clause contained in the preceding Guidelines, with a solitary difference that this time 362 industrial units in the category of Micro and Small Enterprises drawing less than 10 cum/day, are added in the category of exempted categories. It says:
"1.0 Exemptions from seeking No Objection Certificate:
Following categories of consumers shall be exempted from seeking No Objection Certificate for ground water extraction:
(i) Individual domestic consumers in both rural and urban areas for drinking water and domestic uses.
(ii) Rural drinking water supply schemes.
(iii) Armed Forces Establishments and Central Armed Police Forces establishments in both rural and urban areas.
(iv) Agricultural activities.
(v) Micro and small Enterprises drawing ground water less than 10 cum/day."
394. For Drinking & domestic use for Residential apartments/Group housing societies/Government water supply agencies in urban areas, procedure for NOC is provided in para 2.0. It says that for new and existing wells, where Government water supply agency is unable to supply requisite amount of water in the area, NOC shall be granted, subject to following specific conditions:
"i) Installation of Sewage Treatment Plants shall be mandatory for all residential apartments/ Group Housing Societies where ground water requirement is more than 20 m3/day. The water from Sewage Treatment Plants shall be utilized for toilet flushing, car washing, gardening etc.
ii) The No Objection Certificate shall be valid for a period of five years from the date of issue or till such time local Government water supply is provided to the project area, whichever is earlier.
In case the project proponent receives water supply from the concerned local Government Water Supply Agency during the validity of the No Objection Certificate, intimation regarding availability of public water supply shall be sent by the project proponent to CGWA and No Objection Certificate will be cancelled by the Authority. In other cases, the project proponent will apply for renewal of No Objection Certificate, ninety days before the expiry of No Objection Certificate.
iii) Proponents shall be liable to pay ground water abstraction charges for the quantum of ground water proposed to be extracted, as per rates mentioned in Table 5.1." 363
395. Vide para 3.0, Agriculture sector was exempted from obtaining NOC for ground water extraction. For commercial use, para 4.0 of Guidelines, 2020, says that no new major industry shall be granted NOC in over- exploited assessment areas except as per the policy Guidelines.
396. Para 4.1 deals with the case of industrial use and says that in over- exploited assessment units, NOC shall not be granted for ground water abstraction to any new industry except those falling in the category of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'MSME'). However, an exception has been provided for grant of NOC for drinking/domestic use for work force, green belt use by these new industries. Expansion of existing industries involving increase in quantum of ground water abstraction in over-exploited assessment units shall not be permitted. NOC shall not be granted to new packaged water industries in over-exploited areas, even if they belong to MSME category. Thereafter, certain specific conditions have been mentioned for grant of NOC to industries, and the same are as under-
"i) No Objection Certificate shall be granted only in such cases where local government water supply agencies are not able to supply the desired quantity of water.
ii) All industries shall be required to adopt latest water efficient technologies so as to reduce dependence on ground water resources.
iii) All industries abstracting ground water in excess of 100 m3/d shall be required to undertake annual water audit through Confederation of Indian Industries (CII)/ Federation Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)/ National Productivity Council (NPC) certified auditors and submit audit reports within three months of completion of the same to CGWA. All such industries shall be required to reduce their ground water use by at least 20% over the next three years through appropriate means.
iv) Construction of observation well(s) (piezometer)(s) within the premises and installation of appropriate water level monitoring mechanism as mentioned in Section 15 shall be mandatory for industries drawing/ proposing to draw more than 10 m3/day of ground water and. Monitoring of water level shall be done by the project proponent. The piezometer (observation well) shall be constructed at a minimum distance of 15 m from the bore well/production well. Depth and aquifer zone tapped in the 364 piezometer shall be the same as that of the pumping well/wells.
Detailed guidelines for design and construction of piezometers are given in Annexure II. Monthly water level data shall be submitted to the CGWA through the web portal.
v) The proponent shall be required to adopt roof top rain water harvesting/recharge in the project premises. Industries which are likely to pollute ground water (chemical, pharmaceutical, dyes, pigments, paints, textiles, tannery, pesticides/insecticides, fertilizers, slaughter house, explosives etc.) shall store the harvested rain water in surface storage tanks for use in the industry.
vi) Injection of treated/untreated waste water into aquifer system is strictly prohibited.
vii) Industries which are likely to cause ground water pollution e.g. Tanning, Slaughter Houses, Dye, Chemical/ Petrochemical, Coal washeries, other hazardous units etc. (as per CPCB list) need to undertake necessary well head protection measures to ensure prevention of ground water pollution (Annexure III).
viii) All industries drawing ground water in safe, semi-critical and critical assessment units shall be required to pay ground water abstraction charges as applicable as per Tables 5.2 A and 5.3 A.
ix) All existing industries drawing ground water in over-exploited assessment units shall be liable to pay ground water restoration charges as applicable as per Tables 5.2 B and 5.3 B."
397. The documents to be submitted along with application for grant of NOC, included an IAR, which was made mandatory, where abstraction of ground water proposed is in excess of 100 m3/day in over-exploited, critical and semi-critical areas. The aforesaid report shall be on the ground water regime and also socio-economic impacts to be prepared by accredited consultants.
398. In respect of mining projects, Para 4.2 says that there is no restriction on grant of NOC even in over-exploited areas. It reads as under:
"All existing as well as new mining projects will be required to obtain No Objection Certificate for ground water abstraction. Since mining projects are location specific, there will be no ban on grant of No Objection Certificate for abstraction of ground water for such projects in over-exploited assessment units."365
399. However, specific conditions attached for issue of NOC for mining projects are provided in para 4.2, as under:
"i) It shall be mandatory for all the mining industries to ensure that water available from de-watering operations is properly treated and should be gainfully utilized for supply for irrigation, dust suppression, mining process, recharge in downstream and for maintaining e-flows in the river system.
ii) Construction of observation well(s) (piezometers) along the periphery in the premises, for monthly ground water level monitoring, shall be mandatory for mines drawing/ proposing to draw more than 10 m3/day of ground water. Depth and aquifer zone tapped in the piezometer shall be commensurate with that of pumping well/wells.
iii) In addition, the proponent shall monitor ground water levels by establishing observation wells (piezometers) in the core and buffer zones as specified in the No Objection Certificate.
iv) In case of coal and other base metal mining the project proponent shall use the advance dewatering technology (by construction of series of dewatering abstraction structures) to avoid contamination of surface water.
v) In addition to this, all mining units shall also monitor the water quality of mine seepage and mine discharge through NABL accredited/ Govt. approved laboratories and the same shall be submitted at the time of self-compliance.
vi) All mining projects drawing ground water in safe, semi-critical and critical assessment units shall be required to pay ground water abstraction charges as applicable as per Tables 5.4 A.
vii) All mining projects drawing ground water in over-exploited assessment units shall be liable to pay ground water restoration charges as per Table 5.4 B."
400. The documents required to be submitted along with application for NOC in respect of a mining project, include, besides mining plan approved by the concerned Authorities and proposals for rain water harvesting/recharge within the premises, a comprehensive report, made mandatory vide clause(c), which reads as under:
"(c) Comprehensive report prepared by accredited consultant on ground water conditions in both core and buffer zones of the mine, depth wise and year wise mine seepage calculations, impact assessment of mining and dewatering on ground water regime and its socio-economic impact, details of recycling, reuse and recharge, reduction of pumping with use of technology for mining 366 and water management to minimize and mitigate the adverse impact on ground water, based on local conditions. Format for report is given in Annexure V."
401. In Para 4.3 of Guidelines 2020, issue of NOC to infrastructure project has been dealt with. Here, it is said that since infrastructure projects are location specific, grant of NOC to such projects located in over- exploited assessment units shall not be banned. It reads as under:
"4.3 Infrastructure projects:
Since infrastructure projects are location specific, grant of No Objection Certificate to such projects located in over-exploited assessment units shall not be banned. New infrastructure projects/residential buildings may require dewatering during construction activity and/or use ground water for construction. In both cases, applicants shall seek No Objection Certificate from CGWA before commencement of work. However, in over-exploited assessment units, use of ground water for construction activity shall be permitted only if no treated sewage water is available within 10 km radius of the site. New as well as existing Infrastructure projects shall also be required to seek No Objection Certificate for abstraction of ground water."
402. However, it is also provided in para 4.3 that no NOC shall be granted for extraction of groundwater for water parks, theme parks and amusement parks in over-exploited assessment units. Thereafter, specific conditions for grant of NOC for ground water abstraction in infrastructure projects are provided, in para 4.3 in clauses (i) to (v), as under:
"i) In case of infrastructure projects that require dewatering, proponent shall be required to carry out regular monitoring of dewatering discharge rate (using a digital water flow meter) and submit the data through the web portal to CGWA/SGWA as applicable. Monitoring records and results should be retained by the proponent for two years, for inspection or reporting as required by CGWA/SGWA.
ii) Installation of Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) shall be mandatory for new projects, where ground water requirement is more than 20 m3/day. The water from STP shall be utilized for toilet flushing, car washing, gardening etc.
iii) For infrastructure dewatering/ construction activity, No Objection Certificate shall be valid for specific period as per the detailed proposal submitted by the project proponent.367
iv) All infrastructure projects drawing ground water in safe, semi-
critical and critical assessment units shall be required to pay ground water abstraction charges as applicable as per Table 5.3 A.
v) All infrastructure projects (new/existing) drawing ground water in over-exploited assessment units shall be liable to pay ground water restoration charges as per Table 5.3 B."
403. For documents required to be submitted along with the application, clauses (a), (c) and (e) to (g) of Para 4.3, talk of the following documents:
"(a) In cases where dewatering is involved, submission of impact assessment report prepared by an accredited consultant on the ground water situation in the area giving detailed plan of pumping, proposed usage of pumped water and comprehensive impact assessment of the same on the ground water regime shall be mandatory. The report should highlight environmental risks and proposed management strategies to overcome any significant environmental issues such as ground water level decline, land subsidence etc.
(c) Certificate from a government agency regarding non availability of treated sewage water for construction within 10 km radius of the site in critical and over-exploited areas.
(e) Proposal for rain water harvesting/ recharge within the premises as per Model Building Bye Laws issued by Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs.
(f) Details of water requirement computed as per National Building Code, 2016 (Annexure I), taking into account recycling/ reuse of treated water for flushing etc. (in case of completed infrastructure projects for commercial use).
(g) Completion certificate from the concerned agency for infrastructure projects requiring water for commercial use."
404. More attention has been paid in Guidelines 2020 on ground water abstraction charges. It is payable by all residential apartments/group housing societies/Government water supply agencies in urban areas and industries/mining/infrastructure projects. Ground water abstraction charges, based on quantum of ground water extraction and category of assessment units as per details given in Guidelines, are payable by all industries/mining/infrastructure projects drawing ground water in safe, semi-critical and critical assessment units. Ground water restoration 368 charges, based on quantum of ground water abstraction, are payable by all existing mining/infrastructure projects and existing industries including MSME drawing ground water in over-exploited assessment units. Ground water restoration charges are also payable by new MSME, new infrastructure and new mining projects in over-exploited areas.
405. Para 6.0 deals with Bulk Water Supply and says that all private tankers, abstracting ground water, and use it for supply as bulk water suppliers, will now mandatorily seek NOC for ground water abstraction. Bulk water suppliers through tankers drawing ground water in safe, semi- critical and critical assessment units shall pay ground water abstraction charges as per Table-6.1A. Bulk water suppliers drawing ground water in over-exploited assessment units shall pay ground water restoration charges as per the Table-6.1B. All tankers will have to install GPS based system for their monitoring of movement/area of operation.
406. Para 7.0 deals with abstraction of saline ground water and here the provision is broadly similar as it was in earlier Guidelines.
407. A new provision with regard to protection of wetland areas is added vide para 8.0 and it reads as under:
"8.0 Protection of Wetland Areas The wet land areas in the country are very crucial as they are direct reflection of the presence of ground water in such areas. The protection of the wetland areas is being separately handled by the Wetland Authorities. Since ground water is very crucial for the survival of the wetland area, any excessive ground water development within the zone of wetland area would affect the volume of water in that wetland.
Projects falling within 500 m. from the periphery of demarcated wetland areas shall mandatorily submit a detailed proposal indicating that any ground water abstraction by the project proponent does not affect the protected wetland areas. Furthermore, before seeking permission from CGWA, the projects shall take consent/approval from the appropriate Wetland Authorities to establish their projects in the area."369
408. Thereafter, in para 9.0 some general compliance conditions of NOC are mentioned which we are omitting at this stage.
409. In para 11.0, subject of renewal of NOC is dealt with. The term of renewal is specified in para 11.0 (v) as under:
"v. No Objection Certificate will be renewed for the terms specified for various uses as follows:
Category Use Term of renewal
Critical, Infrastructure projects for 5 years
Semi- drinking & domestic use and
critical and urban Water Supply Agencies
safe Industries 3 years
Mines 2 years
Over- All users in 'Over-exploited 2 years
exploited areas'
"
410. If there is delay in finalization of NOC, Para 11.0 (vi) contains provision for deemed grant of NOC and reads as under:
"vi. If the application for renewal is submitted in time and the CGWA/the respective State/UT Authority is unable to process the application in time, No Objection Certificate shall be deemed to be extended till the date of renewal of No Objection Certificate."
411. However, if PP has delayed in applying for renewal, provision has been made that he will have to pay only environmental compensation for the period starting from the date of expiry of NOC till NOC is renewed by Competent Authority. However continued withdrawal/extraction of ground water by PP, despite expiry of NOC, will not be illegal. This is what is provided in para 11.0 (vii) which reads as under:
"vii. If the proponent fails to apply for renewal within 3 months from the date of expiry of No Objection Certificate, the proponent shall be liable to pay Environmental Compensation for the period starting from the date of expiry of No Objection Certificate till No Objection Certificate is renewed by the competent authority."370
412. Guidelines 2020, vide para 13.0 has appointed District Magistrate/District Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrates of each Revenue District/Sub division as Authorized Officers, delegating power to seal illegal wells, disconnect electricity supply to the energized well, launch prosecution against offenders etc., including grievance redressal related to ground water in their respective jurisdictions. It is also provided that to decentralize and strengthen monitoring and compliance mechanism as per the Guidelines, officials of concerned Departments of Revenue and industries of States/UTs shall be appointed as Authorized Officers in consultation with State/UT Governments. Copy of NOC issued by CGWA shall be forwarded to the respective District Magistrate/District Collector. It is provided in Para 13.0 that for any violation of directions of CGWA and non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down in NOC, Authorized Officers will file appropriate petition/original application etc. under Sections 15 to 21 of EP Act 1986, in appropriate Courts.
413. Para 14.0 direct all Project Proponents (drawing ground water more than 10m3/day) to have mandatorily constructed piezometers (observation wells) within their premises for monitoring of ground water levels.
414. Determination of environmental compensation and formula thereof is provided in para 15.0 of Guidelines 2020, and, it reads as under:
"Extraction of ground water for commercial use by industries, infrastructure units and mining projects without a valid No Objection Certificate from appropriate authority shall be considered illegal and such entities shall be liable to pay Environmental Compensation for the quantum of ground water so extracted. The norms prescribed by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) shall be utilized for calculating the Environmental compensation as mentioned below:
ECGW = Ground water consumption per day x Environmental Compensation rate (ECRGW) x No. of days x Deterrence factor where ground water consumption is in m3/day and ECRGW in Rs./Cum"371
415. Rates of environmental compensation are prescribed in para 15.1 which are different for different kinds of units in as much as table 15.1 provides rates of environmental compensation for packaged drinking water units; table 15.2 in respect of mining/infrastructure dewatering projects; and table 15.3 for industrial units. It is, however, provided in all the 3 tables mentioned above that minimum environmental compensation shall not be less than Rs. One lakh.
416. Para 15.2 lays down deterrent factors to compensate losses and environmental damage (packaged drinking water units and mining/infrastructure dewatering projects). Para 16.0, besides, and/or in addition of environmental compensation, provides penalty liable to be imposed on Proponents for non-compliance of NOC conditions issued by appropriate authority and rates of penalty are given in Table 16.1.
417. Para 17.0 provided other important conditions applicable to all and reads as under:
"17.0 Other important Conditions (Applicable to all):
i. Sale of ground water by a person/agency not having valid no objection certificate from CGWA/State Ground Water Authority is not permitted.
ii. In infrastructure projects, paved/parking area must be covered with interlocking/perforated tiles or other suitable measures to ensure groundwater infiltration/harvesting.
iii. In case of Infrastructure projects, the firm/entity shall ensure implementation of dual water supply system in the projects. Compliance of the same shall be submitted through the web portal.
iv. Non-compliance of conditions mentioned in the No Objection Certificate may be taken as sufficient reason for cancellation of no objection certificate accorded/non- renewal of No Objection Certificate.
v. No application shall be entertained without supporting documents as specified in relevant sections.
vi. Abstraction structure(s) should be located inside the premises of project property.372
vii. Self compliance of conditions laid down in the no objection certificate shall be reported by the users online in the web portal of Central Ground Water Authority/state Ground Water Authority.
viii. Processing fee prescribed, if any, from time to time shall be charged for various services.
Note:
1. Guidelines are subject to modification from time to time.
2. In case of any discrepancy between Hindi and English versions of this document including the annexures, the English version shall prevail."
418. Thus, the concerned Ministry namely Ministry of Jal Shakti (Department of Water Resources, river Development and Ganga Rejuvenation) issued Guidelines 2020 in purported compliance of directions contained in Tribunal's orders dated 11.09.2019, 20.7.2020 and earlier orders referred in this judgment, but as a matter of fact, we find that Guidelines 2020 broadly do not satisfy directions as given repeatedly and persistently, reposing confidence in the Authorities who are responsible and accountable for preservation and protection of environment, that they would understand their statutory obligations, sensitize themselves with the traumatic condition of environment, show patent endeavour for improvement, march with a conviction that not only present day people but coming generations also get a healthy environment with clean air, non-contaminated water, adequate for drinking and other daily uses, enough ground water necessary for agriculture and simultaneously for developmental activities; and perform with a real sense of devotion and determination. To our utter dismay, they have failed. We do not find much improvement in Guidelines 2020. Virtually, it is only a new cover provided to the old scheme with minor variations, alterations and modifications, here and there, but having no substantial consequences to the root cause and central issue, i.e. protection and 373 preservation of ground water, prevention of, not only further depletion, but a serious and effective attempt for recharge and restoration.
419. So far as exemption for requirement of NOC is concerned, the category of consumers namely domestic, requiring water for drinking and domestic uses, whether in rural and urban areas, Establishments of Security Forces like Armed Forces and Central Armed Police Forces etc. and agricultural activities, we, at this stage, do not find any reason to make any comment but inclusion of some commercial and industrial activities i.e. micro and small industrial entrepreneurs category i.e. MSME, drawing ground water less than 10m3/day, even in the area where ground water level is critical or over exploited, is incomprehensible. The number of such units and impact of drawl of ground water, by such units, on the water level, it appears, has not been examined at all, in as much as the Tribunal passed order on 20.07.2020 and notification containing Guidelines 2020 has been issued 24.09.2020 i.e. within less than two months.
420. Further, in respect of other commercial and industrial activities also, the alleged restrictions are only an eye wash. For commercial uses, it is provided that no NOC to new major industries shall be granted in over- exploited assessment areas except as per Policy Guidelines. In the context of commercial use, only for industrial use, it is provided that NOC shall not be granted for ground water extraction to a new industry, except those falling in the category of MSME. The existing units are not covered by it. More over in the new units, NOC for abstraction of ground water for drinking/domestic use for work force, green belt etc. shall be permitted. Expansion of existing units involving increase of ground water extraction in over-exploited assessment areas shall not be permitted. There is a twist when it says that NOC shall not be granted to new packaged water industries in over-exploited areas even if they belong to MSME category. 374
In Guidelines 2015, no NOC was to be given to any water intensive industry, even if it is MSME, in over exploited assessment areas. Now it is restricted to packaged water industries. Apparently, a drastic relaxation has been given in respect of water intensive industries, for no reason, and that too in flagrant defiance of order of Tribunal.
421. The critical and semi-critical areas have been left untouched and there is no such restriction at all. The only reference to these areas in para 4.1 (viii) is that industries drawing ground water in safe, semi-critical and critical assessment areas shall be required to pay ground water extraction charges which will also be paid by existing industries. The charges are provided as per table 5.2 A and 5.3 A for safe, semi-critical and critical assessment units and tables 5.2 B and 5.3 B for over-exploited areas. The rates provided therein are:
"Table 5.2 A: Rates of ground water abstraction charges for packaged drinking water units (Rs per m 3) S.No. Category Quantum of ground water withdrawal of area Up to 51 to <200 200 to <1000 1000 to 5000 50m3/day m3/day m3/day m3/day <5000 and above m3/day Ground water use
1. Safe 1.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 10.00
2. Semi-critical 2.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
3. Critical 4.00 10.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 Table 5.3 A: Rates of Ground Water abstraction charges for other industries & infrastructure projects (Rs per m3) S.No. Category Quantum of ground water withdrawal of area < 200 200 to <1000 1000 to 5000 m3/day and m3/day m3/day above <5000 m3/day Ground water use
1. Safe 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00
2. Semi-critical 2.00 3.00 5.00 8.00
3. Critical 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 375 Table 5.2 B: Rates of ground water restoration charges for packaged drinking water units (Rs per m3) S.No. Category Quantum of ground water withdrawal of area Up to 50 51 to <200 200 to <1000 1000 to 5000 m3/day m3/day m3/day m3/day <5000 m3/day and above Ground water use
1. Over-exploited 8.00 20.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 (existing industries only) Table 5.3 B: Rates of ground water restoration charges for other industries & infrastructure projects (Rs per m3) S.No. Category Quantum of ground water withdrawal of area < 200 200 to <1000 1000 to 5000 m3/day and m3/day m3/day above <5000 m3/day Ground water use
1. Over-exploited (existing 6.00 10.00 16.00 20.00 industries / new Industries as per the present Guidelines)
422. Rates prescribed above are very nominal and virtually permits abstraction of ground water in stressed area almost free. Water charges prescribed by local bodies by supplying surface water are much more.
Such nominal rates for abstraction of ground water would in fact encourage more abstraction for commercial purpose and frustrate the gigantic efforts being made by Supreme Court and this Tribunal to preserve and protect ground water particularly in stressed areas.
423. In respect of mining and infrastructure projects, it is specifically provided that NOC shall not be denied or banned for existing as well as new projects in over-exploited areas. Though some conditions are there for monitoring of quantity of ground water extraction in the said area, payment of abstraction charges or the restoration charges as the case may 376 be, but effective steps capable of execution for recharge/restoration are clearly wanting.
424. Thus, the issue of constant depletion of water level, initially brought before Tribunal, in the context of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA which are part of district Gautam Buddha Nagar, but subsequently, extended to the entire country since this problem was/is being faced by people throughout the country, remained unexecuted. This Tribunal repeatedly required Statutory Regulators to take effective steps for prevention of depletion of water level and also for recharge/restoration/rejuvenation of water level;
enough power is conferred by Statute upon Statutory Regulator i.e. CGWA to take all permissible, possible and effective steps for the purpose, but it is not understandable why it has been/is reluctant to execute and enforce the said power, in the manner it was desired to protect and preserve ground water level across the country. It is admitted, as also demonstrated in earlier paragraphs, that when study of ground water level was made in different phases, extreme alarming level of ground water was noted in sufficiently large number of places but for regulation purposes a very small fragment thereof was selected by CGWA. In its own discretion, without specifying the criteria on which only a few areas were so selected, CGWA notified a very small numbers and made some provisions, that too, very superficial, for regulating the same. In respect of others, termed as non-
notified area, very relaxed and concessional provisions were made, that too, like grant of a license i.e. NOC, in a very smooth and casual fashion, unmindful of the fact that its statutory duty was to take steps for protection and conservation of ground water level and not to grant easy access for abstraction, that too, to commercial institutions/ establishments/bodies, to extract ground water for commercial/industrial purposes without having any corresponding actual recharge/restoration 377 of ground water, particularly, in the area where it had already depleted to a very low level and was classified as over-exploited, critical or semi critical. Tribunal did not appreciate this approach, expressed its displeasure and disapproval repeatedly, but, and despite that, CGWA, on the pretext of effective functioning of economy, issued revised Guidelines repeatedly and frequently but all failed, when tested at the anvil of conservation and protection of ground water level in stressed or highly stressed areas.
425. Major deficiencies, observed by Tribunal, in various guidelines issued by CGWA, are summarized here as under:
i. Policy to be followed by CGWA has to be rational, meeting basic need of everyone and at the same time preserving water for future generation by preventing wastage or preventable use based on the principle of "sustainable development".
ii. Policy must have punitive measures and recovery of damages from those who have extracted ground water in past and continue to do so unauthorizedly, i.e., illegal extraction, leading to alarming depletion of ground water.
iii. Steps to be taken to tap all relevant sources specially the rain water harvesting and preservation of water bodies;
iv. When CGWA has classified, over-exploited, critical and semi critical areas for regulation, it has no reason to refuse regulation of such areas on the plea that it would govern/regulate only notified area; v. Being Central Authority, CGWA has to regulate ground water in the whole country under the mandate of Supreme Court, hence cannot show apathy on the pretext of notified area, ignoring other areas where ground water level is similarly stressed i.e., over-exploited, critical or semi-critical;
378 vi. Extraction of ground water in over-exploited, critical and semi-
critical area with or without permission, only on the pretext of being non-notified, amounts to failure of Statutory duty on the part of CGWA;
vii. Mechanical imposition of condition of recharge of underground water without any mechanism for ensuring its compliance or to check, whether complied or not, at all, while continuing to permit drawl of ground water for commercial purposes, is unjustified;
viii. Abstraction of ground water for building construction, watering plants, swimming pools, threatening availability of ground water in over-exploited, critical and semi- critical areas, specially, in absence of adequate steps for recharge of ground water, is unjustified; ix. Mere provision for realization of some amount/charges for drawl of ground water is ridiculous and illegal, in respect of extraction of ground water in over-exploited, critical and semi- critical area;
x. CGWA has to observe in its functions, precautionary principle, sustainable development as well as inter-generational equity principle. Drawl of ground water for industrial purposes with or without payment, in OCS areas, should be banned. xi. Checking of contamination of ground water by discharge of untreated effluents in water bodies need comprehensive planning and execution and on priority basis, it is necessary, failing whereof, has led to emergency situation in certain areas; xii. Apathy of authorities in last several years, in neglecting subject in breach of trust, reposed in such authorities, has been noted by Tribunal still no information was given with regard to compliance of earlier orders including action for illegal activities of CGWA. 379 xiii. Instead of laying down strict norms for extraction of ground water for commercial purposes and putting in place a robust institutional mechanism for surveillance and monitoring, extraction of ground water has been liberalized, adding to the crisis, unmindful of ground situation and likely impact, it will have on environment. xiv. No study or data has been furnished or collected to justify this approach.
xv. Drawl of ground water for all practical purposes made unregulated in all areas including OCS.
xvi. So called regulation is illusory.
xvii. Water conservation fee in effect a license to harness ground
water to any extent even in OCS areas.
xviii. No institutional mechanism to monitor removal and replenishment of ground water;
xix. No check on injunction of pollutants in ground water; xx. No provision to check water quality and remediation, if there is contamination;
xxi. Instead of conservation of ground water necessary for providing access to drinking water in OCS areas, Guidelines would result in fast depletion of ground water and damage to water bodies; xxii. Mandate of CGWA is not exploitation of ground water in depleted area but to conserve it;
xxiii. OCS areas need regulation for conservation of ground water, cannot be treated separately as notified or non-notified; xxiv. Compensation to be recovered for illegal abstraction, has to be deterrent, linked to the quantum of ground water extracted and period for which such extraction took place;
380 xxv. CGWA must lay down and follow stringent norms to ensure that there is no depletion of ground water in OCS areas and depleted water level is improved and replenished;
xxvi. The abstraction of ground water in over-exploited area should be permitted only for drinking purposes;
xxvii. For calculation of environmental compensation, present categorization of area (over-exploited, critical and semi-critical) shall be considered, irrespective of when violation started or committed; xxviii. In case of demand of more than 5000 KLD in existing cases, permission be given only after examining scientific assessment of water availability and inter-generational equity. In case of repeated violations, environmental compensation shall be computed at 1.25 times of the previous environmental compensation; xxix. Since OCS areas have been found seriously affected by over-drawl of ground water, regulation of such drawl for commercial purposes cannot be dispensed with for any industry, even in industrial area; xxx. In absence of replenishment of ground water, unregulated drawl cannot be permitted to any commercial entity;
xxxi. Shortage of availability of water for commercial purposes cannot be remedied by permitting drawl of ground water in OCS areas. xxxii. Water is a scarce resource; hence, industry has to cope up with such scarcity and find out its own alternative ways to meet the requirement of water;
xxxiii. They cannot be permitted indiscriminate drawl of water in such areas till situation improves;
xxxiv. Liberalization of ground water extraction across the board, to certain categories, without any impact assessment and effective checks, are against law;
381 xxxv. No road map has been prepared by CGWA as to how revised Guidelines will check and neutralize falling ground water level particular, when it has continuously gone down. Liberalization of abstraction of ground water would defeat the purpose of Constitution of CGWA and is contrary to mandate of Public Trust doctrine;
xxxvi. Effective steps for protecting ground water in OCS areas against individual commercial considerations are must to serve general people.
426. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations which we have culled out from various orders of Tribunal, referred above, ultimately, in the order dated 20.07.2020, 4 issues were formulated in para 27 and in para 28, Tribunal said that the answer to the said issues is 'no'. Tribunal held that as per mandate of sustainable development under Section 20 of NGT Act 2010, Regulator must direct its policy towards preventing further depletion of, and upgrading, ground water levels, based on impact assessment. Extraction can neither be unregulated nor allowed across the board without individual consideration. The directions were consequently issued to prepare meaningful regulatory regime, institutional mechanism for ensuring prevention of depletion, unauthorized extraction of ground water and sustainable management in OCS areas.
427. Unfortunately, the concerned Ministry and Regulator have acted in haste and just in 2 months i.e., 24.09.2020, have published Guidelines 2020 wherein most of the infirmities, irregularities, and failures, pointed out on the part of CGWA, in earlier Guidelines, as such, are present. Though there are minor variations and alterations, but the same are wholly inconsequential, looking to the gravity of the situation, arising due to consistent depletion of ground water.
382
428. The Notification issued by UPGWD shows that in the State of UP almost every district, and some districts as a whole, are in serious stressed condition, having depletion of water to the extent of critical and over- exploited level, and a very few are exceptions.
429. In the present case, it is not in dispute that since 2013, area wherein PP unit is situated comes in the category of over-exploited. There are 3 NOCs relied by PP:
(i) 21.12.2016 issued by CGWA valid upto 20.12.2018,
(ii) 23.04.2020 issued by CGWA valip for the period 21.12.2018 to 19.12.2021 and
(iii) Dated nil issued by UPGWD for the period 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026.
430. Admittedly, PP has NOC dated 21.12.2016 (page 321) permitting abstraction of ground water of 330 m3/day (not exceeding 99000 m3/year) through existing two tubewells. PP claimed that it had installed two tubewells in 2016 i.e. tubewell no. 3 and 4 and therefore, the above NOC refers to the above borewells. The NOC further said that PP shall implement ground water recharge measures at least to the tune of 106000m3/year within 6 months from the date of issue of the letter dated 21.12.2016. Besides, it will also undertake maintenance of recharge structures at its own cost and shall adopt one number of villages for water security plant in District Amroha. The validity period of NOC was from 21.12.2016 to 20.12.2018.
431. PP was also required to submit photographs of recharge structure after completion of the same to Regional Director, CGWB, Northern Region, Lucknow for verification under intimation to CGWA. It was also to install two piezometers fitted with automatic water level recorders having 383 telemetry system at suitable locations and execute ground water regime monitoring program in and around the project area on regular basis in consultation with the CGWB. We may reproduce the relevant conditions containing in the NOC dated 21.12.2016/27.12.2016 as under:
"1. The firm may abstract 330 cum/day (and not exceeding 99,000 cum/year) of ground water, through existing two (2) tubewells only. No additional ground water abstraction structures to be constructed for this purpose without prior approval of the CGWA
2. All the wells to be fitted with water meter by the firm at its own cost and monitoring of ground water abstraction to be undertaken accordingly on regular basis, atleast once in a month. The ground water quality to be monitored twice in a year during pre-monsoon and post monsoon periods.
3. M/s C.L. Gupta Exports Ltd. shall in consultation with the regional director, Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region, Lucknow implement ground water recharge measures atleast to the tune of 1,06,000 cum/year as proposed for augmenting the ground water resources of the area within six months from the date of issue of this letter. Firm shall also undertake periodic maintenance of recharge structures at its own cost. In addition, the firm shall adopt 1 no. villages for water security Plan in District Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. The necessary guideline for the water Security Plan is available on website of Ministry of Water Resources, RD & GR (www.mowr.gov.in). Both the Demand side Management/Supply Side Management with maintenance of structures in the said villages to be ensured and a comprehensive plan to be submitted to Regional Director, CGWB. Firm shall also undertake periodic maintenance of recharge structures at its own cost.
4. The photographs of the recharge structure after completion of the same are to be furnished immediately to the Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region, Lucknow for verification and under intimation to this office.
5. The firm at its own cost shall install two (2) plezometers fitted with automatic water level recorders having telemetry system at suitable location and execute ground water regime monitoring programme in and around the project area on regular basis in consultation with the Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region, Lucknow.
6. The ground water monitoring data in respect of S. No. 2 & 5 to be submitted to Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region Lucknow on regular basis at least once in a year.
7. The firm shall ensure proper recycling and reuse of waste water after adequate treatment.
8. Action taken report in respect of S. No. 1 to 7 may be submitted to CGWA within one year period.
9. The permission is liable to be cancelled in case of non-compliance of any of the conditions as mentioned in S. No. 1 to 8.
10. This NOC is subject to prevailing Central/State Government rules/laws or Courts orders related to construction of tubewell/ground water withdrawal/construction of recharge or conservation structure/discharge of effluents or any such matter as applicable.
11. This NOC does not absolve the applicant/proponent of this obligation/requirement to obtain other statutory and administrative clearances from other statutory and administrative authorities.384
12. The NOC does not imply that other statutory/administrative clearance shall be granted to the project by the concerned authorities such authorities would consider the project on merits and be taking decisions independently of the NOC
13. This NOC is valid from 21.12.2016 till 20.12.2018"
432. The application for renewal of NOC submitted by PP on 13.12.2018 to CGWA is annexure 3 to inspection report 03.12.2019. The information supplied therein by PP shows that the total water requirement was 490 KLD/m3 per day. Details given are hereunder:
"Details of Water Requirement (Fresh and Recycled Water Usage)
(i) Total Water Requirement (a+b+c+d) (m3/day) Water Requirement Existing Additional Total Details (Fresh Water) (m3/day)
(a) Ground Water 330.00 0.00 330.00 Requirement (m3/day):
(b) Surface Water (Canal, 0.00 0.00 0.00
Available River, Ponds
etc.) (m3/day):
(c) Water Supply from Any 0.00 0.00 0.00
Agency (m3/day):
Total Fresh Water 330.00 0.00 330.00
Requirement
(a+b+c)(m3/day):
(d) Recycled Water Usage 160.00 0.00 160.00
(m3/day):
Total Water Requirement: 490.00 0.00 490.00
(a+b+c+d) (m3/day)
(ii) Breakup of water Requirement and Usage Activity Existing Additional Total No. of Annual Requirement Requirement Requirement operational Requirement (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day) days in (m3/day) year Industrial 375.00 0.00 375.00 300 12500.00 Activity Residential/ 55.00 0.00 55.00 300 16500 Domestic Greenbelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Development/ Environment Maintenance Other Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Grand Total 490.00 0.00 490.00 147000.00 385
(iii) Details of water Availability from ETP/STP for Recycle/Reuse usage:
Existing Additional Total
(m3/day) No. of (m3/year) (m3/day) No. of (m3/ (m3/ (m3/day) (m3/year)
days days year) year)
Effluent/ 180.00 300 54000.00 180.00 54000.00
Sewerage
Generated
and
treated in
ETP/STP
Availability 160 300 48000.00 160.00 48000.00
treated
Effluent/
Sewerage
For usage:
Effluent 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sewerage
Discharge
after
Treatment:
(iv) Availability treated effluent usage: Total Quantity same as 2(i) and 2(ii) (b) above"
433. The said application gives further details of water requirement for industrial purposes, residential purposes and green belt development as under:
Activity Existing Additional Total
Requirement Requirement Requirement
(m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day)
Industrial 375.00 0.00 375.00
Activity/
Commercial Use
Domestic / 55.00 0.00 55.00
Residential use
Greenbelt 60.00 0.00 60.00
Development/
Environment
Maintenance
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Use/flushing req.
Grand Total 490.00 0.00 490.00
434. Giving details of the borewells which were supposed to be used by PP, he has stated that both these borewells were installed in 2016 with the depth of 75 M/250 MM diameter. The operational hours are 9 and 8 respectively for 300 days in a year and hourly discharge from two borewells is 16 and 15 CUM. The details are given in para 3(a) of renewal application as under:
386
3(a) Groundwater Abstraction Structure Existing:
Number of Existing Structures:
S Type Depth Depth Discharge Operational Mode of Horse Whether Whether
N. of (Meter)/ to (m3/hour) Hours Lift Power fitted Permission
Struct Diameter water (Day)/days Name of with Registered
ure (mm) level (year) Pump water with
Name/ (meter meter CGWA/if
Year of below So
Constr ground Details
uction level) thereof
1.
Borewell 75.00/ 15.82 16.00 9/300 Submersible 15.00 Yes Yes
/2016 250 pump
2.
Borewell 75.00/ 15.42 15.00 8/300 Submersible 15.00 Yes Yes
/2016 250 pump
435. With regard to compliance of earlier NOC proponent has given information in Para 4(a) as under:
4(a). Compliance to the Condition Prescribed in the NOC S Conditions given in NOC Compliance Status of Compliance No. conditions applicable
1. Area specific Plantation Yes Complied
2. Domestic Water School Sanitation Yes For residential water supply separated
3. Groundwater quality monitoring-Pre Yes Complied monsoon and Post monsoon
4. Maintenance of recharge Yes Under construction structure
5. Number of Pizometers as per NOC Yes Complied and Water Level Record
6. Number of Tubewells Borewells as Yes Complied per NOC
7. Pizometer fitted with AWLRs with Yes Complied (Supplied telementry as per NOC installed commissioned technical demonstrated to our staff hand trained all properly by OBM Electronics Technology Company Jaipur)
8. Quantum of Groundwater as per Yes Complied NOC
9. Recharge through ponds Not Applicable
10. Recycle and reuse Yes Complied
11. RWH and AR structures Yes Under Construction implemented
12. Submission of Compliance report to Yes Complied the Region
13. Water conservation measure Yes Water Sprinkler Boiler Heat condensation
14. Water Security plan of Villages Yes Taken care of S. No. 13 above. This condition requested to be waived as per letter #140 dated 29.05.2017 387
15. Well monitored around the plant Not premises Applicable
16. Well fitted with water meter and its Yes Complied Record
436. In para 6 of the renewal application the proponent stated that 12 rainwater system were proposed and under construction.
437. In para 10 of the renewal application more compliance conditions prescribed in NOC have been detailed as under:
10. Compliance to the Conditions Prescribed in the NOC SNo. Conditions given in NOC S.no. Attachments Attachment File Name Name Area specific Plantation 1. Plantation CLG
1. Plantation.p df
2. Domestic Water School 1. Domestic Domestic Sanitation Water water Sanitation Sanitation.pdf
3. Groundwater quality 1. Pre Monsoon Pre Monsoon monitoring-Pre monsoon and and and Post monsoon Post Post Monsoon Monsoon.pdf
4. Maintenance of recharge 1. Maintenance Maintenance structure RS RS.pdf
5. Number of Pizometers as per 1. Pizometers Ground Water NOC and Water Level Record Record Details.pdf
6. Number of Tubewells 1. Borewells Borewells.pdf Borewells as per NOC
7. Pizometer fitted with AWLRs 1. Pizometer Pizometer with telementry as per NOC fitted with fitted with AWL AWL.pdf
8. Quantum of Groundwater as 1. Quantum of Quantum of per NOC Groundwater Groundwater.
9. Recharge through ponds No Attachment Found !
10. Recycle and reuse 1. Recycle Recycle Water Water Record Record Glass Glass Division.pdf Division
2. Recycle Recycle Water Water Record Record Metal Metal Division.pdf Division
11. RWH and AR structures 1. RWH RWH implemented Structures Structures 388
12. Submission of Compliance 1. Compliance Compliance report to the Region Report Report.pdf
13. Water conservation measure 1. Boiler Heat Boiler Heat condensation condensation.
2. Water Water Sprinkler Sprinkler.pdf
14. Water Security Plan of 1. Water Water Villages Security Plan Security Plan.pdf
15. Well monitored around the No Attachment Found! plant premises
16. Well fitted with water meter 1. Water Meter Water and its Record and Reading Meter.pdf
438. The information given in para 4 and para 10 of renewal application at some points are contradictory. We find that in regard to recycle or reuse of water PP has referred to only Glass division and Metal division.
439. Admittedly, PP has not given any information about other borewell on the premises. Further, no NOC as a matter of fact was given but the application itself shows non-compliance of earlier NOC on various aspects including recharge arrangement.
440. It is also admitted that NOC dated 21.12.2016 was valid for a period two years and expired on 20.12.2018. Despite expiry of NOC on 20.12.2018, PP continued abstraction of groundwater.
441. In reply dated 14.11.2019 (Page 260), PP has admitted that in inspection dated 28.04.2019 conducted by officials of CGWA, borewell no. 3 and 4 were found operational and borewell no. 6 is used for fire hydrant. In inspection dated 16.10.2019 again joint inspection team appointed by Tribunal, found 6 borewells in the premises; 2 borewells, i.e., borewell no. 3 and 4 operational and borewell no. 6 was being used for fire hydrant. The inspection team also found that PP had extracted 8.45 KLD groundwater from borewell no. 6 from July 2019 to 15.10.2019 for which 389 it had no authority. It is not disputed that borewell no. 6 was in use by PP as is evident from reply dated 14.11.2019. It has also said that in the financial year from April to March of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, it has extracted groundwater as under:-
S. Financial Year Total Water Total Water Status No. (April to March) Abstracted Abstraction by Firm limit NOC as per CGWA 1 2017-2018 78349 99000 Within limit m3/annum m3/annum 2 2018-2019 82262 99000 Within limit m3/annum m3/annum
442. PP claimed that abstraction of groundwater was within limit as per NOC though NOC was not operating in March-April 2019 having already expired on 20.12.2018. The extraction of groundwater of 8.45 KLD is from borewell no. 6 which was not authorized even by NOC dated 21.12.2016.
PP has also stated that there is glass unit which cannot function if there is no water supply for two hours and if the borings are demolished, there may be a chaos. Extract of his reply is as under:-
"It is as such clarified that:
1.There were 6 borings and out of them three were sealed as witnessed by your team on 16.10.19 as also regularly by UPPCB team, during their monthly inspection. You will kindly appreciate that ours is a continuous process industry and activities mainly Glass Melting furnace (50 tons per day) cannot work if there is no water supply for over 2 hours. If the borings are also demolished, there will be a chaos and whole 50 tonnes glass will freeze and the furnace may burn causing a dreadful tragedy.
Director of factories has also acknowledged this, while issuing the factory license. In our application dated 3/3/17. We had clearly requested for 2 tubewells as standby for coping up with any break in present water supply and our contest in still pending. Hence the decision on this point is awaited before demolishing the sealed tubewells."
443. PP has relied upon to his application submitted to Director of Factories for permitting two tubewells as standby but when questioned during the course of arguments, could not show any provision under 390 which Director of Factories could have granted permission with regard to bore-wells when the matter was within the authority of CGWA under the provisions of EP Act 1986. However, the above reply of PP clearly shows admission on his part about illegal and unauthorized use of borewells after expiry of NOC on 20.12.2018 and even earlier by using borewells which were not permitted to be use for abstraction of groundwater.
444. In the written submissions dated 10.08.2021 part B para 8, PP has said that for the first time CGWA notified requirement of NOC for extraction of ground water. This is factually and legally, both incorrect. Pursuant to Supreme Court direction in MC Mehta vs Union of India & Ors. (1997) (supra), Government of India constituted CGWA as an authority under section (3) of EP Act 1986 to regulate ground water.
445. CGWA issued guidelines for regulation of ground water by industries/projects initially vide Guidelines 1999 which was made effective on 01.01.1999. The Guidelines 1999 were substituted by 2009; Guidelines 2012; Guidelines 2015; Guidelines 2018 and lastly 2020.
446. PP had stated that four borewells were installed long back but the same could not have travelled beyond 2004 since as per own admission of PP industry at the present location, PP commenced business in 2004. Two borewells as per own admission were installed later but specific dates were not given. Be that as it may, extraction of ground water by the above borewells was always regulated by the guidelines issued by CGWA in exercise of statutory powers under EP Act 1986 and since PP did not have any NOC prior to 21.12.2016 it had been operating illegally by extracting ground water all through.
391
447. By NOC dated 21.12.2016 CGWA permitted only 330 KLD extraction of ground water from two borewells. It was incumbent upon PP to seal and close other borewells permanently but it did not.
448. A perusal of NOC dated 21.12.2016/27.12.2016 (Annexure 2) to the Joint Inspection Report dated 03.12.2019 shows, while permitting extraction of 330 KLD ground water (but not exceeding 99,000 KLD per year) through existing two borewells, CGWA also imposed a condition that PP shall implement ground water recharge measure at least to the tune of 1,06,000 CUM per year for augmentation of ground water resources of the area within 6 months from the date of issue of NOC i.e. 21.12.2016/27.12.2016. In addition, PP shall adopt one number village for water security plant in district Amroha. This was not complied.
449. The second EC relied by PP is dated 23.04.2020 issued by CGWA valid for 21.12.2018 to 19.12.2021. PP has relied on the said NOC but the fact is that the said NOC permitted abstraction of only 155 KLD i.e. 46500 m3/year. The said NOC did not permit abstraction of ground water for industrial purposes. Secondly, we find no provision under which CGWA could have issued NOC retrospectively. A retrospective consent/clearance/NOC has been held impermissible by Supreme Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 347. Therein a circular issued by MoEF on 14.05.2002, which envisaged grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance, was challenged before Tribunal. Circular was held illegal holding that in environmental law, there is no concept of ex post facto Environmental Clearance etc. Matter was taken before Supreme Court and therein an objection was raised on behalf of PP that Tribunal cannot declare Government of India, MoEF's orders ultra vires or illegal. Reliance was placed on behalf of PP, on the judgment in TechiTagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & 392 Others. (supra) and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (2019)19SCC479. Supreme Court relied upon an earlier judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India (2017)9SCC499, wherein an argument in support of ex post facto Environmental Clearance was rejected, and said in para 125 as under:
"We are not in agreement with learned counsel for the mining lease holders. There is no doubt that the grant of an EC cannot be taken as a mechanical exercise. It can only be granted after due diligence and a reasonable care since damage to the environment can have a long term impact. EIA 1994 is therefore very clear that if expansion or modernization of any mining activity exceeds the existing pollution load, a prior EC is necessary and as already held by this Court in M.C. Mehta (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004)12SCC118) even for the renewal of a mining lease where there is no expansion or modernization of any activity, a prior EC is necessary. Such importance having been given to an EC, the grant of an ex post facto environmental clearance would be detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreparable degradation of the environment. The concept of an ex post facto or a retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence including EIA 1994 and EIA 2006. We make it clear that an EC will come into force not earlier than the date of its grant."
450. Having referred to the above law, laid down in Common Cause (supra), Supreme Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati & Others., (supra), in para 23, said:
"23. The concept of an ex post facto EC is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA notification dated 27 January 1994. It is, as the judgment in Common Cause holds, detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreparable degradation. The reason why a retrospective EC or an ex post facto clearance is alien to environmental jurisprudence is that before the issuance of an EC, the statutory notification warrants a careful application of mind, besides a study into the likely consequences of a proposed activity on the environment. An EC can be issued only after various stages of the decision-making process have been completed. Requirements such as conducting a public hearing, screening, scoping and appraisal are components of the decision-making process which ensure that the likely impacts of the industrial activity or the expansion of an existing industrial activity are considered in the decision-making calculus. Allowing for an ex post facto clearance would essentially condone the operation of industrial activities without the grant of an EC. In the absence of an EC, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment. Moreover, if the EC was to be ultimately refused, irreparable harm would have been caused to the environment. In 393 either view of the matter, environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development."
451. Therefore, firstly the above NOC dated 23.04.2020 issued by CGWA could not have validated abstraction of ground water on and after 21.12.2018 and secondly, in any case, the said NOC did not permit abstraction of ground water for industrial purposes which PP had actually abstracted, hence this was wholly illegal and unauthorised.
452. Third NOC has been issued by UPGWD vide certificate no. NOC 019504 under Section 10(1) of UPGWMR Act 2019. The said NOC is valid up to 07.04.2026. It shows that application was submitted for the said NOC on 03.04.2022. However, there is a hand written endorsement on the bottom of the NOC which reads as under:
"w.e.f. 21.12.2018 as per the direction of the Director Ground Water Lucknow (copy attached)"
453. The above endorsement is patently illegal and unauthorised. Even Director Ground Water had no such authority under law. On 21.12.2018, UPGWMR Act 2019 itself was not in existence. Hence, question of grant of NOC w.e.f. 21.12.2018 by UPGWD does not arise. Moreover, when the application for NOC was submitted to UPGWD on 03.04.2021, no NOC for the period prior to that could have been issued. Further, the above NOC has not been issued after complying direction given by this Tribunal in Shailesh Singh, OA 176/2015 which we have already discussed above and also the Guidelines 24.09.2020 issued by CGWA which shall prevail over the provisions of UPGWMR Act 2019. No impact assessment report was prepared particularly when the area in question was in the category of over-exploited.
454. Further, under Rule 15(3), UPGWD could have issued NOC valid for a period of five years only but in the present case, NOC sought to be issued 394 for a period of almost seven years i.e. from 21.12.2018 to 07.04.2026 which is patently illegal.
455. Under guideline 2020, in over-exploited area, no NOC could have been granted for period beyond two years. As we have already observed, in the case of inconsistency between Provincial enactment and guideline issued by CGWA under EP Act 1986, later shall override and prevail over Provincial legislation, hence no NOC could have been granted by UPGWD beyond a period of 2 years. Be that as it may, in no case the alleged NOC issued to PP in 2021 by UPGWD could validate otherwise illegal abstraction of ground water on and after 21.12.2018 and therefore PP is clearly guilty of illegal extraction of ground water.
456. It is really strange that a body which was not even in existence in December 2018 and even the statute under which it was constituted, was not in existence, could not have granted a valid NOC effective from 21.12.2018 and thus the contention of PP that NOC granted by UPGWD was effective from 21.12.2018 and conferred valid authority upon it for extraction of ground water on and after 21.12,2018 is incorrect and unacceptable.
457. The NOC as per own stand of PP is valid till 07.04.2026. Under Rule 15(3), UPGWD could have issued NOC valid for a period of 5 years only. If 5 years period is counted back from the 07.04.2026 it will come to 08.04.2021 beyond which even under UPGWMR Act 2019 and UPGWMR Rules 2020, NOC could not have been granted by UPGWD.
458. Documents on record also show that even this permission of extraction of ground water was not adhered to by PP and he flouted the same as per his own convenience and played fraud not only with authority but with Tribunal also by misrepresentation of the facts in various places. 395
459. PP has himself demonstrated that requirement of water for domestic purposes is 55 KLD. If we take this disclosure by PP himself in his application for renewal of NOC submitted in December 2018, for 30 days in a month the maximum requirement of water for domestic purposes would be 1650 KL/CUM.
460. Compliance report dated 14/30.07.2021 filed by CPCB pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 04.02.2021 shows that STPs/ETPs show consumption of 16966.5 KL fresh water during February, 2021 to June, 2021 i.e. 5 months which means 3393.3 KL fresh water per month which almost double the requirement which was shown by PP himself in his renewal application. No explanation has come for such huge increase in the alleged domestic purpose. The said report also shows as per log book data PP extracted 17032 KL water during February 2021 to June 2021.
461. Interestingly, the sewage generation during this period is 21360 KL and 20971 KL treated sewage was generated. Lesser extraction of water and generation of more sewage is neither understandable and could not be explained.
462. Report shows that the records were not maintained in regular course of business and actual facts are totally different, huge quantity of water was extracted and used indiscreetly in different places.
463. The above report dated 14/30.07.2021 also shows that PP maintained log books showing utilization of treated waste water as under:
i. Total quantity of sewage generated- 21360 KL ii. Total quantity of sewage water available after treatment-20830 KL.
iii. Treated sewage used in horticulture-5158 KL.396
iv. Treated sewage water sent to industrial section for utilization-3401 KL v. Treated sewage water used in toilet flushing by employees in unit premises and different section 12271 KL.
All these figures are in the period of February, 2021 to June 2021.
464. Report further says that between February to June 2021 utilization of treated affluent from common ETP and common STP in industrial processes was 17848.7 KL out of which 9526 KL was used in Glass Section, 1362.1 KL in Wood Section and 6960.6 KL in Metal Section. It is also mentioned that total quantity of Sewage sent for treatment to common ETP was 18633.39 KL where from 17849.59 KL treated affluent was recovered and utilized in industrial processes but where from this water was obtained when total extraction for domestic purposes was only 17032 KL and as per stand taken at the time of hearing as also in written statement that PP did not extract ground water for industrial purposes then where from he got this water has not been explained. In an earlier report, it is mentioned that PP sought to explain that he got fresh water from outside agencies but neither to the committee any material shown to justify the same not it has been placed on record before us.
465. Various other violations have also been noticed in various reports of Committees. We have already quoted relevant extracts from Committee's reports, above. We have discussed some major issues of non-violations on the part of PP. His defence in objection/written submission including additional submission, broadly is, there is some sampling error or there was no law for maintenance of record etc. or that it has subsequently complied with. We have dealt with all these grounds. Subsequent compliance is no answer for earlier violations for which PP is liable to pay 397 under the 'Polluter Pays' principle and also undergo other legal proceedings including prosecution.
466. We, therefore, partly accept report dated 14/30.07.2021.
467. Amount of compensation determined/recommended by Committees is not consistent with the directions of this Tribunal issued in various matters and also order dated 06.08.2019 passed in this matter. Compensation must take into consideration the cost of damage, cost of remediation, deterrence factor, capacity and turnover of the proponent, etc.
468. The violations in our view are also well proved since no effective reply or objection has come from PP and, therefore, we answer issues I to IV and VIII against PP and hold that it has violated environment laws including the provisions relating to extraction of ground water.
469. In view of the above violations, PP is liable for payment of environmental compensation and face other remedial action including, criminal action. Violation of environmental laws are offences under various provisions of Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and EP Act, 1986. Besides, withdrawal of ground water illegally amounts to theft since natural resources are property of people and State is the custodian and anybody who take away property of people, illegally, commits an offence of theft.
470. In the matter of illegal extraction of minerals, similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay (2014)9SCC772.
471. Relying on the Doctrine of Public Trust, applied in the context of environment, Court held that natural resources constitute public assets and State is trustee and custodian to protect it, even if proceedings have 398 not been initiated under MMRD Act, 1957, if a person has extracted minerals unauthorizedly and illegally, it amounts to theft and, therefore, offence is covered under Sections 378 and 379 of IPC, wherein police can take cognizance and Magistrate on receipt of police report is empowered to proceed without waiting for a complaint to be filed by an officer authorized under MMRD Act, 1957. Court said that dishonest removal of sand gravel and other minerals from river which is property of the State, out of State's possession without consent, constitutes an offence of theft. Hence, provisions of MMRS Act, 1957 will not debar police from taking action against persons committing theft of sand and minerals by exercising power under Cr.P.C. and submit a report before Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. Court said "any case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of Cr.P.C". Further in para 73, Court said that "we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river beds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 Cr.PC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act."
472. Thus, the PP is also liable to be prosecuted under Section 379 of IPC. This being a cognizable offence, Police may take appropriate action in accordance with law. Unfortunately, we find that the State Administration 399 follow a very dispassionate, apathetic and unconcerned type of attitude with regard to offences relating to environment and that is encouraging the people to violate laws and norms of environment and it causes serious degradation.
Offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
473. When environmental norms are not observed and in violation thereof there is discharge and/or emission of pollutants causing pollution and thereby commercial activities for commercial gains continue, such activities also attract provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA 2002' as amended from time to time).
474. PMLA 2002 was enacted pursuant to resolution No. S-17/2 adopted by General Assembly of United Nation at 17th Special Sessions held on 23.02.1990 on political declaration and global programme of action; and political declaration adopted by UNGA in the Special Session held on 8th to 10th June, 1998. It came into force however on 01.07.2005. The term "money laundering" and" proceeds of crime" are defined in Section- 2(p)&(u) which read as under:
"2(p). "Money Laundering" has the meaning assigned to it in Section-
3. 2(u). "Proceeds of Crime" means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a "scheduled offence" or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value within the country or abroad.
[Explanation: for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that proceeds of crime include property not only derived or obtained from the "scheduled offence" but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as result of criminal activity relatable to the "schedule offence";''
475. "Scheduled Offence" is defined in Section 2(y) and says;400
2(y). "Scheduled Offence" means-
(i) The offences specified under Part-A of the Schedule; or
(ii) The offences specified under Part-B of the Schedule, if the total value involved in such offences is one crore rupees or more; or
(iii) The offences specified under Part-C of the schedule.
476. Section 3 of PMLA 2002 talks of offence of money laundering and says:
"3. Offence of money laundering: whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowing is a party or is actually involve in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including in concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering."
477. There is an explanation also inserted by Finance Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01.08.2019, but for the issue under consideration, it is not relevant, hence omitted.
478. Attachment of property involved in "money laundering" is governed by Section 5 of PMLA 2002 which permits attachment by Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by Director for the purpose of such attachment and he has reason to believe (to be recorded in writing) on the basis of material in his possession that any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime and such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime under this chapter (by order in writing), may provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed.
479. First proviso of Section 5(1) imposes a condition that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the "Scheduled offence", a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate U/s 173 C.R.P.C. or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence 401 mentioned in that schedule, before a Magistrate or Court for taking cognizance of the "Scheduled offence".
480. There is an exception in 2nd proviso of Section 5(1) authorising Director or the officers authorised by him to attach any property of any person referred to in Sub-Section 1, if he has reason to believe (to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession that if such property involved in money laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate proceeding under PMLA 2002.
481. Section 5 (5) requires the Director or the other officer, who has provisionally attached property under Sub-Section 1 to file a complaint within 30 days from such attachment stating facts of such attachment before Adjudicating Authority which is appointed U/s 6.
482. Section 8 provides the procedure to be observed by Adjudicating Authority to pass an order confirming attachment of property U/s 5(1). When such order of confirmation is passed, attached property would remain under attachment till trial completes and if Special Court under PMLA 2002 recorded finding of conviction of commission of offence of money laundering, such property shall stand confiscated to the Central Government but where Special Court finds that offence of money laundering has not taken place or properties not involved in money laundering, it shall release such property to the person entitled to receive it.
483. Section 5 shows that except the cases covered by second proviso, no attachment is permissible unless report U/s 173 C.R.P.C. submitted to the Magistrate or complaint has been filed before the Magistrate or concerned to take cognizance of "Scheduled offence". 402
484. Schedule to PMLA 2002 as initially came into force on 01.07.2005, was having Part-A divided in paragraph 1 dealing with Section 121 & 121(A) of IPC; paragraph-2 covering certain offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Part-B paragraph 1 offences U/s 302, 304, 307, 308, 327, 329, 364(A), 384 to 389, 392 to 402, 467, 489A and 489B of IPC; paragraph 2 contain some offences of Arms Act, paragraph 3 referred to offences under Wild Life Protection Act 1972, Paragraph 4, offences under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956 and Paragraph 5, offences U/s 7, 8, 9 and 10 of PCA 1988.
485. Thus, PMLA 2002, at the time of enforcement in 2005, did not cover Sections 120-B, 468, 420 and 471 IPC and Section 13 of PCA, 1988 and environmental enactments. In other words, offences under these Sections/Statutes were not "Scheduled offences" for the purpose of Section 3 PMLA 2002.
486. The Schedule underwent amendment for the first time vide Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 6.3.2009. In Part A paragraph 1 Section 489A & 489B were inserted. We are not concerned with the offences referred under paragraph 2 of the Schedule, hence amendments made therein are omitted. After paragraph-2, paragraph-3 and paragraphs-4 were inserted relating to offences under Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Offences Under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In Part-B paragraph-1 was substituted and a number of offences of IPC were added and this included Section 120-B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC. Some amendments were made in paragraph 3 and 5 of Part-B and thereafter paragraphs 6 to 25 were inserted covering offences under several enactments which are not relevant for the purpose of issue before us. Part C was also inserted in the schedule to cover cross border offences 403 and the same is also omitted. Even after this amendment, Section 468 IPC and 13 PCA, 1988 were not "scheduled offence" so as to attract offence U/s 3 of PMLA 2002. The amendment was given effect from 01.06.2009.
487. Next amendment was made vide Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2012 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 4.1.2013. Paragraph A part-1 of the Schedule was substituted adding some more offences of IPC. In fact, entire Part A was substituted by a new Part-A which had paragraphs 1 to 28 covering offences under various Statutes, some were earlier in Part A and also Part B and some newly added. Paragraph 8 Part 1 as substituted in 2012 covered offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of PCA, 1988. Thus, Section 13 was included therein only in 2013. In Part B paragraph 1 to 25 were omitted and in Part C serial No. 2 and entries relating thereto were omitted. This amendment came into force from 15.02.2013.
488. The offences under environmental norms have been included in the Schedule to PML Act, 2002 inasmuch as paragraph 23, 25,26,27 have been inserted by Section 30 of PML (Amendment) Act, 2012 which came into force on 15.02.2013 and said insertion of paragraphs are as under:
"PARAGRAPH 23 OFFENCES UNDER THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 2002 (18 of 2003) Section Description of offence 55 read with Penalties for contravention of section 6, etc. section 6.
PARAGRAPH 25 OFFENCES UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (29 OF 1986) Section Description of offence 15 read with Penalty for discharging environmental section 7. pollutants, etc., in section 7 excess of prescribed standards.404
15 read with Penalty for handling hazardous substances section 8. without section 8 complying with procedural safeguards.
PARAGRAPH 26 OFFENCES UNDER THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 (6 OF 1974) Section Description of offence 41(2) Penalty for pollution of stream or well.
43 Penalty for contravention of provisions of section 24.
PARAGRAPH 27 UNDER THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 (14 OF 1981) Section Description of offence 37 Failure to comply with the provisions for operating industrial plant."
489. All these provisions relating to offences under various Environmental Statutes have been placed in part A of the Schedule. Application of PMLA 2002 in respect to the aforesaid offences has to be seen in the light of Section 3 read with schedule as amended vide Amendment Act, 2012.
490. In A.K. Samsuddin Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 15378/2016 decided on 19.07.2016, Kerala High Court said that the time of commission of the "scheduled offence" is not relevant in the context of the prosecution under the Act. What is relevant in the context of the prosecution is the time of commission of the Act of money laundering. It has to be established that the money involved are the proceeds of crime 405 and having full knowledge of the same, the person concerned projects it as untainted property.
491. In Smt. Soodamani Dorai v. Joint Director of Enforcement, Writ Petition No.8383 of 2013 decided on 04.10.2018, a Single Judge of Madras High Court observed that substratal subject of the Act is to prevent money laundering and to confiscate proceeds of crime.
492. PMLA 2002 brings in a different kind of offence on the statute book. In Janta Jha v. Assistant Director (2013) SCC Online (Odisha) 619, High Court of Odisha held that even if an accused has been acquited of the charges framed against him in Sessions Trial, a proceeding under PMLA 2002 cannot amount to double jeopardy where procedure and nature of proof are totally different from a criminal proceeding under IPC.
493. On the contrary, in Rajeev Chanana v. Deputy Director (2014) SCC Online (Delhi) 4889, it was held by Delhi High Court that after acquittal of a person from a "Scheduled offence", trial for an offence U/s 3 of PMLA 2002 will not survive. Court said it is hard to imagine as to how a trial for an offence of money laundering can continue where the fundamental basis, i.e., the commission of a Scheduled offence has been found to be unproved.
494. The question of simultaneous investigation by Police or CBI or any other Investigating Agencies in respect of schedule offences and ED U/s 3 of PMLA 2002 was considered by a Single Judge (Hon'ble S.P. Garg, J) of Delhi High Court in Rohit Tandon v. Enforcement Directorate in Bail Application No. 119 of 2017 and Crl.M.B. 121 of 2017. In the judgment dated 05.05.2017, Court found that Delhi Police registered FIR u/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 188 and 120-B on 25.12.2016 and very next date ED registered ECIR on 26.12.2016. Court said that presence of 406 "Scheduled offence" is only a trigger point for initiating investigation under PMLA 2002. Act nowhere prescribes, if ED is debarred from conducting investigation U/s 3 & 4 PMLA 2002 unless investigating agency concludes its investigation in the FIR or charge sheet is filed therein for commission of "Scheduled offence". The proceedings under PMLA 2002 are distinct from the proceedings of the "Scheduled offence". In the Investigation of FIR by Police, ED has no control. The proceedings under PMLA 2002 are not dependent on the outcome of the investigation conducted in the "Scheduled offences". More over to avoid conflicting and multiple opinions of court, section 44 PMLA 2002 provides trial by Special Court in case of "Scheduled Offence" and offence under PMLA 2002. Delhi High Court relied on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sushil Kumar Katiyar v. Union of India & Ors. (MANU/UP/0777/2016) wherein Allahabad High Court said:
"A person can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering even if he is not guilty of "Scheduled offences" and his property can also be provisionally attached irrespective of the fact as to whether he has been found guity of the "Scheduled offences". The prosecution is not required to wait for the result of the conviction for the "scheduled offences" in order to initiate proceedings U/s 3 of the PML Act. However, the person against whom, there is an allegation of the offence of money laundering, can approach appropriate forum, in order to show his bonafide and innocence that is not guilty of the offence of money laundering and has not acquired any proceeds of crime or any property out of the proceeds of crime."
495. Against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Rohit Tandon appeal was filed in Supreme Court and judgment is reported in (2017) SCC Online SC 1304. Supreme Court upheld, the order of High Court rejecting Bail. Then meeting further argument raised on behalf of Rohit Tandon that the incriminating material recovered, would not take the colour of proceeds of crime as there is no allegation or the prosecution complaint that un-accounted cash deposited by Appellant was result of criminal 407 activity, it was observed that the expression "criminal activity" has not been defined but very nature of the alleged activities of the accused referred to in the predicate offence are criminal activities. Court observed:
".... however, the stated activity allegedly indulged into by the accused named in the commission of predicate offence is replete with mens-rea. In that the concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the property by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts, would certainly come within the sweep of criminal activity relating to a "scheduled offence". That would come within the meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act, being a case of money laundering."
496. Recently in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) SCC Online SC 1143 Court considered scheme of PMLA 2002, and observed that money laundering is the process of concealing illicit sources of money and launderer transferming the money proceeds derived from criminal activity into funds and moved to other institution and transformed into legitimate asset. It is realized world around that money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also to their integrity and sovereignty.
"Schedule offence" is a sine qua non for the offence of money laundering which would generate the money i.e., being laundered.
497. In the present case, when environmental norms were not followed by not operating ETP or by discharging partially or totally untreated pollutant or by causing other violations, this resulted in commission of Scheduled offence and revenue earned by committing such crime is proceeds of crime as defined in PMLA 2002 and by showing it part of business proceeds in accounts amounts to projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The entire activity is covered by Section 3 of PMLA 2002.
498. It appears that initially PMLA 2002 was enacted so as to cover activities of terrorist, illegal traffic in narcotics, enemies of the country etc., 408 applying to a very limited number of statutes, Enforcement Directorate had been taking action under PMLA 2002 in a narrow sphere. It has forgot to take note of the fact that scope of PMLA 2002 has been enhanced or widened, a lot, at least after amendment Act of 2012 w.e.f. 15.02.2013. More than 8 and half years have passed but not a single action has been taken by Enforcement Directorate against violators committing offences under environmental statutes which have been included in the Schedule, part A of PMLA 2002. The offences under Environmental Acts, as such are non-cognizable but under PMLA 2002, offences are cognizable. Since competent authority has never resorted to proceed against violators of environmental Statutes despite committing offences thereunder, which are included in PMLA 2002, this inaction has encouraged polluters to continue violation with impunity. Parliament's intention of treating environmental violations as very serious offences is writ large from the fact that, offences under environmental laws as noticed above, have been included in Schedule, Part A of PMLA 2002 yet enforcement machinery has frustrated entire attempt. It is incumbent upon the competent authorities regulating and enforcing PMLA 2002 to take action against such violators.
499. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct the Statutory Regulators to take appropriate action under the aforesaid laws and a copy of this order shall also be forwarded to Enforcement Directorate for appropriate action under PMLA Act 2002.
ROLE OF CGWA AND UPGWD
500. In our view, CGWA is responsible for permitting illegal extraction of ground water, having aided, abated and assisted PP in such illegal extraction. Its role is very disappointing. It has not performed as directed by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs UOI (1997)11SCC312. Instead of acting as protector, it has functioned as perisher and demolisher. Even 409 when period of NOC expired, PP applied for NOC renewal, CGWA neither proceeded to consider such applications as per directions of Tribunal nor acted to check continued abstraction without NOC. It simply watched PP to continue to do something which was illegal. It behaved as a passive spectator. A Statutory Regulator failed to regulate.
501. On 23.04.2020, CGWA issued NOC permitting abstraction of 155 KLD ground water only for domestic and drinking purposes w.e.f. 21.12.2018 till 31.12.2021. It did not bother to consider that firstly no EC retrospectively could have been issued nor considered that PP had already extracted ground water for domestic/drinking as well industrial purposes even after expiry of earlier EC on 21.12.2018. CGWA did not take any action for such illegal withdrawal of ground water for industrial purposes before it issued NOC actually on 23.04.2020.
502. UPGWD has also done something which was unexpected from a government department and that too when it is performing role of Statutory Regulator. It has surpassed all degrees of patent illegalities; some such illegalities, we have pointed out above. It is true that 'Polluter Pays' principle apply to the person who causes pollution but such person may also be those who assisted, coordinated, cooperated and helped in causing pollution. CGWA and UPGWD satisfy all these characteristics. We hold CGWA and UPGWD guilty and responsible for permitting illegal extraction of ground water by PP, for years together and even till date.
503. CGWA, also, in a wholly illegal manner, abdicated its authority of regulating ground water on the pretext that after enactment of UPGWMR Act 2019, matter of NOC shall be dealt with by State Authorities under the said Act, though similar defence taken by MoEF, was rejected by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others. (1997) (supra) and 410 consistently it has been reminded in other matters also where similar issues were raised, in various judgments of Supreme Court as well as Tribunal. CGWA has also failed to ensure that UPGWD may not act contrary to guidelines issued by CGWA. We have demonstrated how NOCs issued by UPGWD contravened guidelines 2020 of CGWA. Therefore, we find CGWA directly responsible in causing pollution, damaging environment severely, by allowing illegal activities of extraction of ground water. CGWA also failed to ensure recharge of ground water by PPs. The confidence reposed on CGWA, by the highest Court, has been belied.
504. In our view, CGWA and UPGWD, both are, therefore, liable for causing damage/deterioration to environment and responsible for its restoration, restitution and rejuvenation etc., including recharge of ground water.
505. NOC issued by UPGWD as we have already discussed is not valid and in accordance with law, hence we direct CGWA to re-visit the same and pass appropriate order within three months taking into consideration the observations made above and in various other judgments of this Tribunal as also Supreme Court in MC Mehta (1997)(supra).
506. Issues V, VI and VII: These three issues relates to assessment of environmental compensation and other remedial action.
507. First, we will consider the issue related to methodology of assessment of environmental compensation.
Environmental Compensation-Assessment/Methodology:
508. The question of assessment of environmental compensation includes the principles/factors/aspects, necessary to be considered for computing/assessing/determining environmental compensation. Besides 411 judicial precedents, we find little assistance from Statute. Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010 talks of relief of compensation and restitution. It confers wide powers on this Tribunal to grant relief by awarding compensation for the loss suffered by individual(s) and/or for damage caused to environment. Section 15 reads as under:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution-(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,-
a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
b) for restitution of property damaged;
c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as
the Tribunal may think fit.
(2)The relief and Compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section of (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the' applicant 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.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may, be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority.
509. Sub-section 1 enables Tribunal to make an order providing relief and compensation to (i) the victims of pollution, (ii) other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I. Tribunal is also conferred power to pass an order providing relief for restitution of property damaged. Section 15(1)(c) enables Tribunal to pass 412 an order providing relief for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as Tribunal may think fit. Section 15 sub-section 4 says that Tribunal may divide compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedules II, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment so as to provide compensation or relief, (i) to the claimants and (ii) for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
510. Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 gives a list of heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be granted. It has 14 heads in total out of which item (a) to (f), (l), (m) and (n) relates to loss, damage etc. sustained to the person or individual or their property. Item (i) to (k) relates to harm, damage, destruction etc. of environment or environmental system including soil, air, water, land, and eco-system. Items (i) to (k) of Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 are as under:
"(i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna;
(j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards;
(k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;"
511. Items (g) and (h) relate to expense and cost incurred by State in providing relief to affected person; and loss caused in connection with activity causing damage. The damage to environment covers a very wide variety of nature as is evident from definition of environment under section 2 (c) which is inclusive and says; 'environment includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro- organism and property'.
413
512. Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010 requires Tribunal to apply principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
513. Thus, broad principles of environmental laws are given but the methodology for assessing/determining compensation is not provided in the statute. Even Rules framed under NGT Act, 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of EC is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation.
514. Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981;
Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; and NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.
414
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.
515. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organisations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
516. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
517. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partially restoration/remediation.
518. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation must, not only conform the requirement of restoration/remediation but should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive". The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
519. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes 415 risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human- health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human- health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
520. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and whether exposure is likely or not to cause adverse ecological effects. Third step is comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
521. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied.
522. In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have 416 determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation.
523. Nature is extremely precious. It is difficult to price elements of nature like light, oxygen (air), water in different forms like rain, snow, vapour etc. When nature is exploited beyond its carrying capacity, results are harmful and dangerous. People do not understand the value of what nature has given free. Recently in Covid-19 wave II, scarcity of oxygen proved its worth. In dreadful second phase of the above pandemic, any amount offered, in some cases, could not save life for want of oxygen. Further, damage to environment, sometimes do not reflect in individuals immediately and may take time but injury is there. In such cases, process of determination of compensation may be different.
524. In an article, 'the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics' by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') can be applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environment pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z), where z denotes the pollution level. Further, clean- up cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation.
525. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. 417 would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and it has also to be taken care. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'sustainable development', 'precautionary approach' and 'polluter pays', etc.
526. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.
527. Committee in its reports has made certain recommendations determining environmental compensation under certain heads. The 418 computation by Committee is based on certain formulas it has suggested. We have to examine mechanism suggested by Committee and also the value provided to factors like constant quotient and value of "R" i.e., Rupee, to find out whether the same satisfy all aspects necessary to determine appropriate environmental compensation. Applying principle of absolute liability, Polluters Pay alongwith Precautionary Principle and sustainable development, it has to be seen whether PPs are liable to pay environment compensation as suggested by Committee and also to undergo other statutory sanctions provided in the statutes including criminal prosecution, or computation of compensation requires some other method.
528. CPCB Guidelines: CPCB has suggested in a report methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment. It does not encompass individuals, statutory institutions and Government etc. Report is titled as "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" which was finalized in the meeting held on 27.03.2019. It shortlisted the incidents requiring an occasion for determining environmental compensation. Six such incidents, shortlisted, are:
"Cases considered for levying Environmental Compensation (EC):
a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/consent limits.
b) Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.
c) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission / Effluent Monitoring systems.
d) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.
e) Intentional discharges to the environment -- land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.419
f) Injection of treated/partially treated/ untreated effluents to ground water."
529. For the instances at item (a), (b) and (c), report says that 'Pollution Index' (hereinafter referred to as 'PI') would be used as a basis to levy environmental compensation. CPCB had already published Guidelines categorizing industries into Red, Orange, Green and White, based on the concept of PI. The PI is arrived after considering quantity and quality of emissions/effluents generated, types of hazardous waste generated and consumption of resources. PI of an industrial sector is a numerical number in the range of 0 to 100 and is represented as follows:
PI=f (Water Pollution Score, Air Pollution Score and HW Generation Score).
530. Since range of PI is 0 to 100, increase in value of PI denotes increasing degree of pollution hazard from industrial sector. Accordingly, report says, for determining environmental compensation in respect of cases covered by item (a), (b) and (c), it will apply following formula:
"EC = PI × N × R × S × LF Where, EC is Environmental Compensation in Rs.
PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector N = Number of days of violation took place R = A factor in Rupees (₹) for EC S = Factor for scale of operation LF = Location factor"
531. The formula incorporates anticipated severity of environmental pollution in terms of PI, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro and small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations. A note is also given under the aforesaid formula and it reads as under:
"Note:
a. The industrial sectors have been categorized into Red, Orange and Green, based on their Pollution Index in the range of 60 to 100, 41 to 59 and 21 to 40, respectively. It was suggested that the average pollution index of 80, 50 and 30 may be taken for calculating the 420 Environmental Compensation for Red, Orange and Green categories of industries, respectively.
b. N, number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/due date of direction's compliance and the day of compliance verified by CPCB/SPCB/PCC. c. R is a factor in Rupees, which may be a minimum of 100 and maximum of 500. It is suggested to consider R as 250, as the Environmental Compensation in cases of violation. d. S could be based on small/medium/large industry categorization, which may be 0.5 for micro or small, 1.0 for medium and 1.5 for large units.
e. LF, could be based on population of the city/town and location of the industrial unit. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or up to 10 km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following factors (LF) may be used:
Table No. 1.1: Location Factor Values S. No Population* Location Factor# (million) (LF) 1 1 to <5 1.25 2 5 to <10 1.5 3 10 and above 2.0 *Population of the city/town as per the latest Census of India #LF will be 1.0 in case unit is located >10km from municipal boundary LF is presumed as 1 for city/town having population less than one million.
For notified Ecologically Sensitive areas, for beginning, LF may be assumed as 2.0. However, for critically Polluted Areas, LF may be explored in future.
f. In any case, minimum Environmental Compensation shall be ₹ 5000/day.
g. In order to include deterrent effect for repeated violations, EC may be increased on exponential basis, i.e. by 2 times on 1st repetition, 4 times on 2nd repetition and 8 times on further repetitions. h. If the operations of the industry are inevitable and violator continues its operations beyond 3 months then for deterrent compensation, EC may be increased by 2, 4 and 8 times for 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter, respectively. Even if the operations are inevitable beyond 12 months, violator will not be allowed to operate.
i. Besides EC, industry may be prosecuted or closure directions may be issued, whenever required.
A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation (without deterrent factor) is given at Table No. 1.2. It can be noticed that for all instances, EC for Red, Orange, and Green category of industries varies from 3,750 to 60,000 ₹/day.
Table No. 1.2: A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation Industrial Red Orange Green Category 421 Pollution 60-100 41-59 21-40 Index (PI) Average PI 80 50 30 R-Factor 250 S-Factor 0.5-1.5 L-Factor 1.00-2.00 Environmental 10,000-60,000 6,250-37,500 5,000-22,500 Compensation (₹/day)
532. We find that R which is a factor in Rupees (₹) is taken to be 100 minimum and 500 maximum. It has suggested that R value be taken as average i.e. Rs. 250/-. On what basis this minimum and maximum has been determined and why average is suggested, beyond any comprehension. We do not find any material in the above report which may throw light for taking value of R as above. Similarly, for determining value of S i.e. Factor for Scale of Operation from 0.5 to 1.5, we find no Guidelines as to on what basis, it has been determined and only on the size of the industry, divided in small, medium and large, the said factor has been prescribed. The note further says that minimum environmental compensation would be Rs. 5000/- per day .From table 1.2, we find that in the highest case i.e., large industry, depending on the level of PI, maximum environmental compensation would be Rs. 60,000/- per day and minimum Rs. 10,000/- per day. The above determination excludes the actual loss to the environment and cost of remediation including damage to flora-fauna and human beings. Moreover classification of industries for industrial policy, or for some licensing purpose, banking purpose etc. would be wholly irrelevant for environment. A small industry may be capable of causing much more pollution than medium or even large industry. For example pollution caused by a brick kiln using coal as fuel may be much more than many medium category industries. 422
533. In respect of items (d), (e) and (f), report says that for determining environmental compensation, one has to consider the matters in two parts, one for providing immediate relief and another long term relief, such as remediation. In such cases, detailed investigations are required from Expert Institutions or Organizations, based on which environmental compensation will be decided. Second part of report is with regard to utilization of environmental compensation fund. For this purpose, report says that CPCB will finalize a scheme for utilization of fund for protection of environment. Certain schemes identified by CPCB for utilization of the said fund are mentioned in para 1.4.1, as under:
"a. Industrial Inspections for compliance verification a. Installation of Continuous water quality monitoring stations/Continuous ambient air quality monitoring stations for strengthening of existing monitoring network b. Preparation of Comprehensive Industry Documents on Industrial Sectors/clean technology c. Investigations of environmental damages, preparation of DPRs d. Remediation of contaminated sites e. Infrastructure augmentation of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)/capacity building of SPCBs/PCCs."
534. All the above, except item (e), relate to establishment/infrastructure for monitoring/prevention of pollution which in fact is the statutory duty and function of officials of State PCB and CPCB. It appears that CPCB has attempted to utilize environment fund to meet expenses which is the responsibility of Government.
535. Chapter II of report deals with determination of environment compensation for violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in NCR. Here a fixed amount of environmental compensation has been recommended in table 2.1, as under:
"Table No. 2.1: Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in Delhi-NCR.
Activity State Of Air Quality Environmental
Compensation
423
Industrial Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore
Emissions
Severe Rs 50 Lakh
Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh
Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh
Vapour Recovery System (VRS) at Outlets of Oil Companies i. Not installed Target Date Rs 1.0 Crore ii. Non-functional Very poor to Severe + Rs 50.0 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 25.0 Lakh Construction sites Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore (Offending plot more Severe Rs 50 Lakh than 20,000 Sq.m.) Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh Solid waste/ Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh garbage dumping in Moderate to Poo Rs 10.0 Lakh Industrial Estates Failure to water sprinkling on unpaved roads
a) Hot-spots Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh
b) Other than Hot- Very poor to Severe + Rs 10.0 Lakh "
spots
536. Chapter III considers determination of environmental compensation where a proponent has discharged pollutants in water bodies or failed to prevent discharge of pollutants in water bodies and also failed to implement Waste Management Rules. Laying down Guidelines for determination of environmental compensation in this category, report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 06.12.2018 in OA No. 125/2017 and MA No. 1337/2018, Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka, stating as under:
"Since failure of preventing the pollutants being discharged in water bodies (including lakes) and failure to implement solid and other waste management rules are too frequent and widespread, the CPCB must lay down specific guidelines to deal with the same, throughout India, including the scale of compensation to be recovered from different individuals/authorities, in addition to or as alternative to prosecution. The scale may have slabs, depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability, etc. Deterrent effect for repeated wrongs may also be provided."424
537. It is suggested that determination of environmental compensation in this category would have two components, (i) Cost saved/benefits achieved by the concerned individual/authority by not having proper waste/sewage managing system; and (ii) Cost to the environment (environmental externality) due to untreated/partially treated waste/sewage because insufficient capacity of waste/sewage management facility. It further says that Cost saved/benefits achieved would also include interest on capital cost of waste/sewage management facility, daily operation and maintenance (O & M) cost associated with the facility. The determination of environmental compensation, therefore, is suggested, applying following formula:
"Therefore, generalized formula for Environmental Compensation may be described as:
EC= Capital Cost Factor × Marginal Average Capital Cost for Establishment of Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Facility × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality"
538. Environmental externality has been placed in two categories (i) untreated/partially treated sewage discharge and (ii) improper municipal solid waste management and detailed in table 3.1 and 3.2, as under:
"Table No. 3.1: Environmental externality for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Sewage Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Treatment Environmental value of Environmental Capacity Externality (Rs. per Externality recommended Gap (MLD) MLD/day) by the Committee (Lacs Rs.
Per Day)
Up to 200 75 Min. 0.05, Max. 0.10
201-500 85 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.35
501 and 90 Min. 0.60, Max. 0.80
above
Table No. 3.2: Environmental externality for improper municipal solid waste management Municipal Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Solid Waste Environmental value of Environmental Management Externality recommended 425 Capacity Externality (Rs. per by the Committee (Lacs Gap (TPD) ton per day) Rs. Per Day) Up to 200 15 Min. 0.01, Max. 0.05 201-500 30 Min. 0.10, Max. 0.15 501-1000 35 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.3 1001-2000 40 Min. 0.50, Max. 0.60 Above 2000 Max. 0.80 "
539. CPCB has further recommend a fixed cap for minimum and maximum cost for capital and O & M component for environmental compensation in table 3.3 and 3.4, as under:
"Table No. 3.3: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million- Class-I plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 values of EC (Total Capital Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) Table No. 3.4: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for improper municipal solid waste management Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million- Class-I plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) "
540. Para 3.3 deals with the method of determining environmental compensation for damage/untreated/partially treated sewage by concerned individual/authority. Under this head, CPCB has considered 426 that for population above 1 lakh, requirement of water supply, would be minimum 150 to 200 lpcd and 85% whereof would result in sewage generation. It takes capital cost for 1 MLD STP ranges from 0.63 crores to 3 crores and O & M cost around Rs. 30,000 per month. Consequently, it suggested to assume capital cost for STPs as Rs. 1.75 crores/MLD (marginal average cost). Expected cost for conveyance system is assumed as Rs. 5.55 crore/MLD and annual O& M as 10% of combined capital coast. Based on the above assumptions, Committee has recommended/suggested environmental compensation, to be levied on urban local bodies, by applying formula and here CPCB has suggested two formulas and any of them may be adopted.
"EC= Capital Cost Factor × [Marginal Average Capital Cost for Treatment Facility × (Total Generation-Installed Capacity) + Marginal Average Capital Cost for Conveyance Facility × (Total Generation -Operational Capacity)] + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Total Generation- Operational Capacity) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality × No. of Days for which facility was not available Alternatively;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = [17.5(Total Sewage Generation - Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Quantity of Sewage is in MLD"
541. Para 3.4 deals with the method of environmental compensation to be levied on concerned individual/authority for improper solid waste management, chargeable from urban local body based on the following formula:
"EC = Capital Cost Factor x Marginal Average Cost for Waste Management × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste 427 disposed as per the Rules) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) × Number of days violation took place + Environmental Externality × N Where;
Waste Quantity in tons per day (TPD) N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Simplifying;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = 2.4(Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) +0.02 (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Waste Generation-Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N"
542. Here also certain assumed figures have been taken by CPCB. Report says that municipal solid waste generation is approximately 1.5 lakh MT/day in India as per MoHUA Report-2016. As per principles of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and PWM Rules, 2016, total cost of municipal solid waste management in city/town includes cost for door to door collection, cost of segregation at source, cost for transportation in segregated manner, cost for processing of municipal solid waste and disposal through facility like composting bio-methanation, recycling, co- processing in cement kilns etc. It is estimated that total cost of processing and treatment of municipal solid waste for a city of population of 1 lakh and generating approximately 50 tons/day of municipal solid waste is Rs. 15.5 Crores which includes capital cost (one time) and Operational and Management cost for one year. Expenditure for subsequent years would be only 3.5 Crores/annum. For arriving per day waste generation, CPCB has referred to a survey conducted by Environment Protection Training Research Institute (EPTRI) which estimated that solid waste generated in small, medium and large cities and towns is about 0.1 kg (Class-III), 0.3- 0.4 kg (Class-II) and 0.5 kg (Class-I) per capita per day respectively. The committee opined that 0.6 kg/day, 0.5 kg/day and 0.4 kg/day per capita waste generation may be assumed for mega-cities, million-plus UAs/towns 428 and Class-I UA/Towns respectively for calculation of environmental compensation purposes.
543. Sample calculation of environmental compensation to be levied for improper management of municipal solid waste has been provided in table 3.6 which read as under:
"Table No. 3.6: Sample calculation for EC to be levied for improper management of Municipal Solid Waste City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala Population (2011) 1,63,49,831 17,60,285 8,76,969 5,00,774 Class Mega-City Million-plus Class-I Town Class-I Town City Waste Generation (kg. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 per person per day) Waste Generation (TPD) 9809.90 880.14 350.79 200.31 Waste Disposal as per 2452.47 220.04 87.70 50.08 Rules (TPD) (assumed as 25% of waste generation for sample calculation) Waste Management 7357.42 660.11 263.09 150.23 Capacity Gap (TPD) Calculated EC (capital 17657.82 1584.26 631.42 360.56 cost component) in Lacs.
Rs.
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 Min. 100
values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000
Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000
Component)
recommended by the
Committee (Lacs Rs.)
Final EC (capital cost 10000.00 1584.26 631.42 360.56
component) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC (O&M 147.15 13.20 5.26 3.00
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Min. 0.1
values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 10.0
Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 1.0
Component)
recommended by the
Committee (Lacs
Rs./Day)
429
Final EC (O&M 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Calculated 2.58 0.18 0.03 0.02
Environmental
Externality (Lacs Rs. Per
Day)
Minimum and Maximum Max. 0.80 Min. 0.25 Min. 0.01 Min. 0.01
value of Environmental Max. 0.35
Max. 0.05 Max. 0.05
Externality
recommended by the
Committee (Lacs Rs. per
day)
Final Environmental 0.80 0.25 0.03 0.02 "
Externality (Lacs Rs. per
day)
544. Chapter IV deals with determination/computation of environmental compensation in case of "illegal extraction of ground water" and for this purpose report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 03.01.2019 passed in OA No. 327/2018, Shailesh Singh vs. Central Ground Water Board & Ors. The relevant extract of the order quoted in para 4.1 of the report is as under:
"CPCB may constitute a mechanism to deal with individual cases of violation of norms, as existed prior to Notification of 12/12/2018, to determine the environment compensation to be recovered or other coercive measures to be taken, including prosecution, for past illegal extraction of ground water, as per law."
545. Here, broadly, determination of environmental compensation refers to two major aspects i.e. illegal extraction of water as one aspect and illegal use of ground water as second aspect. For determination of environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, formula suggested by Committee is:
"ECGW =Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW) Where water Consumption is in m3/day and ECRGW in Rs./m3 430 Yield of the pump varies based on the capacity/power of pump, water head etc. For reference purpose, yield of the pump may be assumed as given in Annexure-VI.
Time duration will be the period from which pump is operated illegally. In case of illegal extraction of ground water, quantity of discharge as per the meter reading or as calculated with assumptions of yield and time may be used for calculation of ECGW."
546. Depending on the category of the area for the purpose of ground water i.e. safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited and also the purpose for which ground water is used, determination of environmental compensation for illegal use of ground water, has been suggested differently for different purpose/use i.e. for drinking and domestic use; for packaged drinking water units/for mining infrastructure and dewatering projects and for industrial units. Hence all these aspects are separately given in paragraph 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 as under:
"4.6.1 ECRGW for Drinking and Domestic use:
Drinking and Domestic use means uses of ground water in households, institutional activity, hospitals, commercial complexes, townships etc. Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No <2 2 to <5 5 to <25 25 & above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 4 6 8 10 2 Semi Critical 12 14 16 20
3. Critical 22 24 26 30 4 Over-Exploited 32 34 36 40 Minimum ECGW=Rs 10,000/- (for households) and Rs. 50,000 (for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc.) 4.6.2 ECRGW for Packaged drinking water units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 12 18 24 30 2 Semi Critical 24 36 48 60
3. Critical 36 48 66 90 4 Over-Exploited 48 72 96 120 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/-431
4.6.3 ECRGW for Mining, Infrastructure and Dewatering Projects:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 15 21 30 40 2 Semi Critical 30 45 60 75
3. Critical 45 60 85 115 4 Over-Exploited 60 90 120 150 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/ 4.6.4 ECRGW for Industrial Units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 20 30 40 50 2 Semi Critical 40 60 80 100
3. Critical 60 80 110 150 4 Over-Exploited 80 120 160 200 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/- "
547. It is also recommended that minimum environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water would be Rs. 10,000/- if it is for domestic purposes, but in other matters, it would be Rs. 50,000/-.
548. These recommendations by CPCB have not been given in the form of a binding statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that these are only broad suggestions, ignore several relevant aspects which have to be considered while determining environment compensation in a given case therefore, cannot be taken as readymade application to all situations for determining of environment compensation. Moreover, on some aspects there is no suggestion, but it is deferred.
549. We also find that some crucial relevant aspects requiring application of 'Polluters Pay', have not been considered in the above suggestions. CPCB has failed to consider that the purpose of determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation 432 and levy thereof, involve various factors like (i) cost of damage to environment, (ii) cost needed for restoration/remediation of damage caused to environment, (iii) element of deterrent/provincial, (iv) liability arising for violation of statuary mandatory law relating to environment namely requirement of consent, EC and NOC etc. It is not mere cost of item or subject but computation of something which situation has arisen by an act of PPs due to violation of environmental law causing damage to environment. The loss and its remedy involves complex of components.
550. Nature is precious. The elements of nature like air, water, light and soil in materialistic manner may not be priced appropriately and adequately. Most of the time, whenever price is determined, it may be extremely low or highly exorbitant meaning thereby disproportionate. Still, since some of the assets of nature are marketable, on that basis price may be determined but when such elements are damaged or degraded, restoration thereof, in effect is priceless. Many a times, it may be almost impracticable and improbable to recover and remediate damaged environment to its position as it was. Moreover, its cost might be very high. It also cannot be doubted that once there is a pollution or damage to environment, it would affect adversely not only the environment but also inhabitants and all biological organisms. Damage is there, only degree may differ whether to the environment or to the inhabitants and other organisms. To find out simultaneously degree of damage and to ascertain the same in many cases may not be possible or practicable. For example, a polluted air causes respiratory diseases but the people do not get infected and starts reflection of the disease immediately but it takes some time. The time taken in reflection of injury on the person or body also differs from person to person depending upon his immunity and other health conditions. In some cases, damage to environment i.e., air pollution may 433 be fatal to a person who already has respiratory problem. For some a minor inconvenience, minor injury to others, and some may not suffer to the extent of showing symptoms of any diseases at all. When we talk of environmental compensation for causing degradation to environment and for its restoration or remediation, it is not a formal or casual or symbolic amount which is required to be levied upon the violator. It is substantive and adequate amount which must be levied for restoration of environment. CPCB in determining values of fixed quotients and rupees etc., has been very lenient as if only symbolically violator is to be held liable and it must pay a petty amount.
551. Statutory Regulators must realize that the amount is needed for remediation and restoration of damaged environment; enough to be deterrent, to provide adequate compensation where inhabitants are affected adversely and where violator has proceeded in violation of Environmental Laws relating to consents, clearances, permissions etc., to penalize him for such violation to prove to be a deterrent to him and others. Unfortunately, the above guidelines laid down by CPCB have not considered all these aspects and it appears that the same have been prepared in a very casual and formal manner.
552. In respect of computation of compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, CPCB has referred to Tribunal's order in Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka (supra) directing it to lay down guidelines to deal with the scale of compensation but has failed to consider that Tribunal has also observed that its scale may have slabs depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability etc. and deterrent effect.
553. Statutory Regulators have also failed to consider that environmental compensation is not a kind of fee which may result in profiteering to 434 violators and after adjusting a nominal amount of environmental compensation, a violator may find it profitable to continue with such violations. The objective of environmental compensation is that not only the loss and damage already caused, is made to recover and restore but also in future, the said violator may not repeat the kind of violation already committed and others also have a fear of not doing the same else similar liability may be enforced upon them. Unless amount of compensation is more than maximum permissible profit arising from violation, the purpose of environmental compensation would always stand defeated.
554. Loss caused to surroundings of the environment, may also include flora-fauna and human beings. It is in this backdrop that in various matters when the issues were considered by Courts and Tribunal and found necessary to impose environmental compensation upon Proponent/Violator of environmental laws, they have followed different mechanisms. Sometimes, Committee's reports confirming violations have been referred but for quantum of compensation, directions have been issued in different ways. In some cases, CPCB guidelines have been applied while in many other, project cost has been made basis.
555. CPCB Guidelines have taken care of industries and municipal bodies. Its application in all cases irrespective of other relevant consideration may prove to be disastrous. Individuals, charitable, social or religious bodies, public sector and government establishments etc., may, in given circumstances justify a different approach. Further, there may be cases attracting aggravating factors or mitigating factors, for example in national emergency some activity got performed violating environmental norms or a proponent is resilient to any advice to adhere law to protect environment and so on. In fact, quantum of EC should have nexus with State's efforts for protection and preservation of environment and control 435 of pollution. Compensation regime must be a deterrent to violators and incentivize eco-friendly proponents. No one should get profited by violating environmental laws and community should also not suffer for violation of environmental norms by defaulting proponents. There is no reason, if beside the aspects noticed above, the computation process also incorporate the elements of inflation, quality of life, and economic prosperity.
556. In the context of "violation of disposal of Bio-Medical Waste" and "Non-compliance of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016" and determination of environmental compensation for such violations, Tribunal in OA No. 710/2017, Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Others and other connected matters, vide order dated 15.07.2019, accepted report of CPCB, and said:
"10. The compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs.
11. It is made clear that if even after two months the States/UTs are found to be non-compliant, the compensation will be liable to be recovered from the said States/UTs at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till the non-compliance continues."
557. The above recommendations i.e. in para 10, Tribunal said "compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs". It further says that if State Governments and UTs still remain non-complying for two months, compensation will be recovered at the rate of Rs. 1 crore per month till non-compliance continues.
558. In respect of solid waste, sewage effluent, ground water extraction etc., Tribunal in OA No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others, vide order dated 28.08.2019 has 436 said in para 16, that as regards environmental compensation regime fixed vide CPCB guidelines for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water is accepted as an interim measure. Tribunal further observed that recovery of compensation on 'Polluter Pays' principle is a part of enforcement strategy but not a substitute for compliance. It directed all States/UTs to enforce compensation regime latest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and made it clear that it is not condoning any past violations. Tribunal directed to enforce recovery of compensation from 01.04.2020 from the defaulting local bodies failing which the concerned States/UTs themselves must pay the requisite amount of compensation.
559. In the matter of illegal mining causing damage to environment, methodology for determining environmental compensation was examined in OA no. 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters decided on 26.02.2021. Here a report was submitted by CPCB on 30.01.2020, placing on record recommendations made by Committee comprising:
i.) Dr Purnamita Dasgupta, Professor, IEG, Delhi, ii.) Dr K.S. Kavi Kumar, Professor, MSE, Chennai, iii.) Dr. Yogesh Dubey, Associate Professor, IIFM, Bhopal, iv.) Shri Sundeep, Director, MoEF&CC, Delhi and v.) Shri A. Sudhakar, Additional Director, CPCB, Delhi
560. Report was considered by Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2020. Report said:
"8. The Committee considered two approaches:
(I) Approach 1: Direct Compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damages. (II) Approach 2: Computing a Simplified NPV for ecological damages.
9. In the first approach, the criteria adopted is:
Exceedance Factor (EF).437
Risk Factor (RF).
Deterrence Factor (DF).
10. Approach 1 is demonstrated by Table 1 as follows: Table No. 01: Approach 1
Permitted Total Excess Exceedance Compensation Quantity Extraction Extraction in Charge (in MT or (in MT or (in MT or Extraction: (in Rs.) m3) m3) m3) X Y Z=Y-X Z/X D* (1+RF+DF) Where D=Z x Market Value of the material per MT-or-m3 DF = 0.3 if Z/X = 0.11 to 0.40 DF = 0.6 if Z/X = 0.41 to 0.70 DF = 1 if Z/X >= 0.71 RF = 0.25, 0.50. 0.75, 1.00 (as per table 2)
11. Approach 2 is demonstrated by following formula:
"Total Benefits (B)=Market Value of illegal extraction: D(refer Table 1) Total Ecological Costs (C) = Market Value adjusted for risk factor: D * RF (refer Table 1)."
12. Final recommendation is as follows:
"Thus, it is recommended that the annual net present value (NPV) of the amount arrived at after taking the difference between the costs and the benefits through the use of the above approach, maybe calculated for a period of 5 years at a discount rate of 5% for mining which is in a severe ecological damage risk zone. The rationale for levying this NPV is based on expert opinion that reversal and/or restoration of the ecological damages is usually not possible within a short period of time and rarely is it feasible to achieve 100% restoration, even if the sand deposition in the river basin is restored through flooding in subsequent years. The negative externalities of the mining activity are therefore to be accounted for in this manner. Ideally, the worth of all such damages, including costs of those which can be restored should be charged. However, till data on site-specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorization charged. However, till data on site-specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorisation is unavailable or pending calculation, the following Discount Rates may be considered:438
Severity Mild Moderate Significant Severe Risk Level 1 2 3 4 Risk Factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 Discount 8% 7% 6% 5% Rate
561. Here, in both the approaches, element of illegality committed by PP in carrying on mining was not considered at all. For example, if EC and/or consent is not obtained. Similarly cost of remediation/restoration was also not taken into consideration.
562. In some cases compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example: (i) in Ajay Kumar Negi vs Union of India, OA No. 183/2013, Rs. 5 crores was imposed. (ii) In Naim Shariff vs M/s Das Offshore Application no.
15(THC) of 2016, Rs. 25 crores was imposed (iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India, Rs 25 crores was imposed.
563. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (2014)6SCC590, Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2013)8SCC209 and held that ten per cent of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was an appropriate compensation given that mining could not completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a special purpose vehicle, i.e., "Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund" for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.
564. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others, (2019)18SCC494, Supreme Court affirmed imposition of 439 environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent. Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where PP had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by PP and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of PP.
565. In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others,(2018)18SCC257, Tribunal imposed 195 cr. compensation since project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it 100 crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher. Supreme Court also upheld Rs.5 crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost.
566. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra), where illegal extraction of minerals was involved and in Goel Ganga Developers India vs. Union of India (supra), where a construction project was carried out without EC in violation of EIA 2006, Supreme Court permitted computation of environment compensation at 10% of the project cost. In fact, in Goel Ganga case, exemplary cost of Rs. 100 crores were imposed, and Court said that developer would pay 100cr. or 10% of project cost whichever is higher.
567. Next question will be whether compensation should be determined at 10% of the project cost or should be higher or lower. We find that in Goel Ganga case (supra), project proponent was found guilty of multiple 440 illegal acts including violation of the laws relating to EC, consent, etc, raised even otherwise illegal construction for the purpose of commercial project. Similarly, in Goa Foundation (supra), also illegal extraction was found by private proponents for commercial gains.
568. Applying the above principle, we find the proponent himself has admitted in his written submissions/arguments that its turn-over in 2019- 2020 itself was about Rs. 550 crores per annum. The violations have continued much prior to 28.03.2019 and at least till the date when order was reserved 03.08.2021. PP is repeated violator in as much as earlier in 2017 also 20 lacs compensation was computed for violation of environmental norms and PP paid the amount. It has continued atleast for more than three years. If we take up even 5% of the turn-over per year, it would come to Rs. 82.5 crores for three years. However taking a pragmatic view, the fact that PP is providing employment to more than 7000 persons, PP has taken some steps for compliance though it is still to be verified, and other relevant factors, we find it appropriate to impose environmental compensation at 3% of turnover for each year of violation which we are taking as 3 years. Turnover according to PP was Rs. 550 crores in 2019-
20. The amount of compensation would come to Rs.49.50 crores. We round it off to Rs. 50 crores. We have given due weight to the fact that in 2017, PP was found guilty of violation of environmental laws and imposed compensation but it has not mend its ways and still have continued to violate environmental laws and norms.
569. PP claims that now it has complied with all the requirements and recommendations and has referred to the status report dated 30.07.2021. Here also, we find that there are some compliances mentioned but some are still wanting. Even water audit has to be conducted afresh as we have held above. In our view, let a Monitoring Committee may visit the premises 441 of PP, conduct water audit afresh in the light of observations made above; find out compliance status in respect of all the aspects and if some deficiencies are still there, recommend appropriate action in accordance with law. The Monitoring Committee shall comprise CPCB, CGWA, UPPCB, UPGWD and District Magistrate, Amroha. CPCB and UPPCB shall be nodal agencies. Compliance report shall be submitted to Registrar, PB of NGT, as on 31.08.2022 by 15.09.2022. If further directions are required, Registrar General shall place matter before Bench.
570. In view of the discussions made above, we find it appropriate to issue following directions:-
(a) Respondent 1 i.e. M/s. C L Gupta Exports Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit environmental compensation of Rs. 50 crores with CPCB within two months.
(b) The divisions of PP, which continue to fail in compliance of environmental norms, shall be closed till requisite steps are taken by PP to comply prescribed standards.
(c) The amount of compensation shall be utilised for restoration of ground water, remediation of damage already caused to ground water, and remediation of damage to environment etc. For this purpose, we constitute a joint Committee comprising CPCB, CGWA, UPPCB, UPGWD and District Collector, Amroha. Committee shall prepare restoration plan within 3 months, execute the same in next 6 months and submit compliance report to Registrar General NGT immediately after expiry of above period.
(d) The Member Secretary, UPPCB is directed to make inquiry as to how respondent 1 could continue to violate environmental laws and norms for years together and fix responsibility of the erring officers of UPPCB. The role of Regional Officer concerned shall be inquired 442 in particular and appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against those officers who are found responsible.
(e) The Statutory Regulators would also take other remedial and punitive measures as per law including prosecution.
(f) The Enforcement Directorate may examine the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment along with provisions of PMLA Act, 2002, wherein environmental laws, i.e., Water Act, 1974 and EP Act, 1986 have been included in Part-A of Schedule I and take appropriate action.
(g) Compliance reports by respective bodies/authorities/Committee in respect of directions contained in the judgement shall be submitted to Registrar General, NGT, PB. If any further directions are required, Registrar General shall place the matter before the Tribunal.
571. With above directions, this OA and all pending I.A.s are disposed of.
572. A copy of the order be forwarded to Chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, Director of Enforcement Directorate, CPCB, CGWA, UPPCB, UPGWD, MoEF&CC, Ministry of Jal Shakti and D.M., Amroha by e-mail by way of information and compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Chairperson Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member Brijesh Sethi, Judicial Member Prof. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member February 25, 2022 Original Application No. 220/2019 R & AVT 443