AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, J.—This petition is filed by Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers Association (here-in-after referred to as "the petitioner Association"). Following prayers have been made in the petition:
A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the Environmental Audit Scheme for Industries Manufacturing Specified Products on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Court.
B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to stay and suspend the operation and implementation of Environmental Audit Scheme for Industries Manufacturing Specified Products Scheme on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by this Court.
C. Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer B above be granted.
D. Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association of Dyestuff Manufacturers in the State of Gujarat. In the late 80s and early 90s, large number of petitions were filed before the High Court alleging rampant pollution being caused by various industries in the State of Gujarat. Many of these industries were concentrated in and around the city of Ahmedabad. In different litigations, series of orders were passed by different Benches of this Court directing corrective measures to be taken by the Industries as well as by Gujarat Pollution Control Board(GPCB for short). One such litigation involved was Special Civil Application No. 770/1995 and connected matters. Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgement dated 20.12.1996 considered various aspects of polluting industries and its impact on the environment and the natural resources. The Bench was of the opinion that the industries could not be allowed to use up the capital provided by the nature. In this regard the Bench made following observations:
To what extent industries should be allowed to use up capital provided by the nature and at what cost, are larger questions which require indepth study but which need not detain us for the present, since we are proceeding on the principle laid down in the case of Indian Council for Enviroment-Legal Action Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that balance between industrialization and ecology is required to be maintained. Nevertheless, the manner in which the capital provided by the nature is used or abused does warrant closer scrutiny at the hands of qualified professionals.
2.1 The Bench eventually envisaged an "environment audit scheme". Bench provided broad contours of the scheme as follows:
...that the scheme is in addition to and not in derogation of the powers of the statutory authorities and also that individual industrial units, cluster of industrial units and class of industries are still subject to monitoring which can be carried out by GPCB, Association of Industries, or monitoring committees appointed by them and/or by the coordinating committee''s, if any, appointed by this Court. Although the scheme is applicable, by virtue of this order, in the first instance to industries in and around Ahmedabad, we see no reason why the scheme should also not be made applicable to the industries manufacturing specified items in all other parts of Gujarat.
2.2 Eventually the proceedings came to be disposed of by issuing following directions:
The State Government and GPCB are directed
(a) to publish the said Scheme in two English and Gujarati daily newspapers having wide circulation in Gujarat for information of all concerned by January 10, 1997 and to invite applications for being recognized as "Environmental Auditors" by February 10, 1997 and to prepare the list of Recognized Environmental Auditors as early as possible and latest by February 28, 1997.
(b) to prepare by February 15, 1997, the format of the Environmental Audit Reports including the proforma statement to be prepared by the Labour Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Factories in consultation with the National Institute of Department of Health.
(c) to implement the Environmental Audit Scheme which is annexed to this order and to report compliance to this Court from time to time.
(d) to formulate plans for monitoring of industries as per, inter alia, discussion in paragraphs 9 and 16 of this order.
(e) to consider the Scheme for providing positive incentives for setting up units using by-products like spent acids as raw-materials for manufacturing other products as discussed in paragraph 16 of this order.
Associations of Industries in Vatva, Naroda, Odhav and Gujarat Vyapari Maha Mandal Estate at Odhav are directed to fix the norms for receiving effluents from individual units [not having secondary treatment plants] into respective CETPs. The instructions containing such norms shall be issued to the members of CETPs by February 15, 1997, and shall be produced on the record of these proceedings on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order shall be sent to NEERI, Nagpur and to ATIRA. The Registry shall immediately send this order to Government and to GPCB.
It is not in dispute that pursuant to such directions a formal scheme has been formulated by GPCB. Petitioners have been filing necessary environment audit reports periodically. In the present petition, it is however the case of the petitioner that adherence to the said requirement of submitting periodical environment audit reports is no longer relevant. It is the case of the petitioners that no useful purpose is being served by filing such reports. Scheme was farmed at the time when industrial pollution was at its peak. Now that much of the polluting industries are brought under control, members of the petitioner Association who are small scale industries, should not be any longer burdened with heavy cost of providing environmental audit every year. It is on this premise that present petition is filed with above-noted prayers.
Replies have been filed on behalf of GPCB contesting the petition and insisting that such scheme has been successful in various ways for controlling the pollution.
On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel Shri Vimal Patel submitted that members of the petitioner No.1 Association are small scale industries. They cannot afford heavy cost of providing environmental audit every year. In any case, it is no longer necessary to have such close monitoring. It is further contended that GPCB had not put the said data to any effective use till the year 2007. Entire effort and expenditure in collecting such data therefore, had failed.
On the other hand on behalf of GPCB, learned Counsel Shri Tushar Mehta appearing for Ms. Amee Yagnik opposed the petition contending inter-alia that the data collected through such environment audit report forms are useful basis for taking corrective measures. GPCB has been taking all necessary steps and would continue to do so in future also.
Having thus heard learned advocates for the parties, first and foremost, we find that directions for Environmental Audit Scheme were given by Division Bench of this Court by decision dated 20.12.1996 in Special Civil Application No.770/1995. It is pursuant to such directions that petitioners are required to abide by the terms of the scheme which in turn required filing periodical environmental audit reports. Granting prayers made in the petition would amount to modifying or recalling said decision of the Division Bench. No case for adopting such a course has been made out. Further, we find that there is nothing before us to suggest that the close monitoring of pollutant industries is no longer necessary. It is not unknown that heavy pollution caused through industries particularly engaged in hazardous substances leave permanent damage on environment, plants, animals and human beings inhabiting in the region. There is no data placed before us to suggest that since the Division Bench passed said decision on 20.12.1996, industries in general have cultivated maturity and self restrain as on its own volition not to cause any serious pollution nor has it been demonstrated that GPCB on its part invariably in all cases performed its statutory functions. Measures provided by the Bench in the said decision therefore, cannot be withdrawn or diluted.
Contention of the petitioners that GPCB has not utilized the data effectively can hardly be a ground to recall the entire scheme. Firstly, if GPCB has been inactive and not taken full advantage of the data collected through such environmental audit, it would be a case for directing GPCB to take more proactive interest. It would certainly not be a case for recalling the directions. Secondly, we also find that as stated in the affidavit dated 24.2.2010 filed by Shri J.K. Vyas, Environment Engineer, GPCB, at-least from the year 2007 onwards series of proceedings have been initiated against erring industries on the basis of data supplied. Such figures are given in tabular form in the affidavit which reads as follows:
Year u/s 33(A) of the Water Act u/s 31(A) of the Air Act, 1981 u/s 5 of the E.P. Act, 1986 Notices Directions Notices Directions Notices Directions 2007 794 327 764 69 24 37 2008 631 637 436 59 10 13 Upto Nov. 2009 588 244 627 85 07 09 9. Additionally, we also notice that National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI for short) has this to say about the scheme:
In Gujarat State, the GPCB implemented Environmental Audit Scheme as per the orders of the Hon''ble High Court of Gujarat in 1996. Based on the evaluation of the environmental audit formats prepared under the Environment Audit Scheme, modifications have been suggested to meet the objectives of the environmental audit of industries. In addition, new formats have been recommended which include,
Proforma for intimation to conduct an environmental audit of an activity.
Certificate by an auditor for the analysis of sample parameters.
Additional information on improvement in effluent/emission quality based on performance of effluent/emission management system is also recommended for achieving progress towards cleaner production activities including retrofitting and proper maintenance of the system thereby attaining the desired objective of the audit scheme. Identifying major hurdles faced during the operation of effluent/emission management systems and remedial measures taken thereof are included in the scheme. Altogether, the scheme has strengthened the environmental management and pollution control in the industrial sector of the Gujarat State.
The necessity of environmental audit is to make the industry realize the impact of its activity and ensure mitigation of the impacts on environment. Hence, environmental auditing for the industries needs to be continued in the interest of environmental protection and society at large, thereby attaining sustainable development. The scheme should not only be restricted to the State of Gujarat but can also be adopted by other states across the country to acquire the benefit of the scheme for compliance with environmental laws and meeting the environmental challenges. Thus benefits gained through implementation of this scheme can be taken advantage of, for sustainable development in the country.
In the result, no case for granting prayers is made out. GPCB is however directed to take all necessary follow up steps on the basis of audit reports to control environmental pollution. This of-course would be in addition to its ordinary function and duties flowing from statutory powers and responsibilities. GPCB shall also ensure that the data collected through such audit reports does not collect dust in the archives of its office but is put to meaningful use for understanding the environmental impact for which main purpose scheme was envisaged by this Court.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.