AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents. The appellant unit has challenged the order of the State Pollution Control Board dated 07.12.2016 passed by invoking Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 directing closure of the appellant's unit on the ground that the ETP of the appellant unit has not been functioning at all apart from other grounds that the log book and other records are not maintained properly by the appellant. Earlier, the 2nd respondent herein has filed an Application No.30 of 2016 praying for a direction against present Appellant Company to stop its activities on the ground that untreated effluent is discharged into the lands which affects the nearby water bodies such as Chembarambakkam lake, Irungattukottai lake, Sriperumbudur lake etc. When the said application was pending, we have directed the present appellant not to drain the effluent consisting toxic materials such as caustic soda and chromic acid into open ground until further orders from the Tribunal. We have also directed the District Environmental Engineer, Padappai, Kancheepuram District who was said to be the monitoring authority, to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
When the matter came up on the 30th November, 2016 the District Environmental Engineer, Padappai was present in the Tribunal. The Law Officer of the State Pollution Control Board has submitted that the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (Monitoring), Chennai dated 26.02.2016 has recommended the closure of the appellant unit and recording the said statement, the application was adjourned. On the adjourned date viz.,14.12.2016, it was informed that the Board has already passed order under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which is impugned in the present Appeal, effecting closure of the unit and recording the statement, Application No.30 of 2016 came to be disposed of. In the present Appeal the closure order dated 07.12.2016 is challenged by the project proponent. It is stated in the previous application in November, 2016 that when a representation was made recommending closure of the unit, in fact on the direction of the Board, there has been an 'on line application' for renewal of consent, made by the appellant on 23.10.2016 and the pendency of that application was not disclosed by the Board before this Tribunal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when the Tribunal has not directed for the closure of the unit, the Board has taken it as if there is a direction issued by the Tribunal for closure of the unit which is wrong and on that basis, the impugned order is to be set aside. He submits that 'online application' for renewal of consent made by the appellant on 23.10.2016 is still pending and the Board has not taken any decision.
Board has filed a reply in this appeal. It is stated by the Board that it was based on the recommendation of the Environmental Engineer that the appellant unit has not maintained ETP, appropriate order under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 came to be passed. The point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that the unit is situated in residential area. Whereas the Board in the reply states that the location of the unit is classified as "unclassified" by DTCP.
Be that as it may, when the Statutory Authority is seized of the matter before whom the application for renewal of consent is pending, it is for the authority to make appropriate decision in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that it is open to both i.e., the appellant as well as 2nd respondent to produce the records before the Board to substantiate their claim whether the unit is located in industrial area or residential area and in the event of production of records, the Board shall consider the same on merit and in accordance with law. We also make it clear that before granting renewal, the Board shall take necessary precautionary measures to see that the pollution does not happen and ETP is made fully operational as the place is stated to be near water body which is the source of drinking water for Chennai. Taking all these facts into consideration, the Board shall pass orders in the pending renewal application on merit and in accordance with law without any influence of the reference and independently decide the issue.
We reiterate that while passing such orders the Board shall ensure that ETP stated to have been installed by the appellant, is fully made operational and the unit does not cause any environmental pollution. Such orders shall be passed expeditiously in any event within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
With the above direction, the appeal stands closed. There shall be no order as to cost.