K. Nachimuthu vs District Environment Engineer And Ors

The application is filed for a direction to respondent No.1, the District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), Karur and respondent No.2, the District Collector, Karur to restrain the respondent No.3, M/s. Thirisul Paper & Ports and respondent No.4, M/s. Athiswara Paper & Boards from discharging the industrial waste into the agricultural lands in Punnam Village, Karur District. The applicant, who claims to be an agriculturist, contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are using chemicals in their industry and the polluted effluent is being discharged into the agricultural land which adversely affects the groundwater, the air and agriculture. It is contended that due to the discharge of effluents with the chemicals, yield from the agricultural land is drastically reduced and the taste and colour of the water started slowly changing and it is not fit for consumption. It is also alleged that the groundwater got polluted and the soil is also adversely affected and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no right to pollute the land and water and therefore respondent Nos.1 and 2 are to be directed to restrain respondent Nos.3 and 4 from operating their industry.

The respondent No.1 in their reply stated that on receipt of a complaint from the applicant dated 01.08.2016, the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were inspected on 10.09.2016 and 15.09.2016 and during the inspection it was found that the units were under operation, the units were manufacturing Paper Boards using the paper wastes such as ETP sludge, de-inking plant sludge and pith material obtained from M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (in short TNPL). The wastes obtained from TNPL were subjected to thorough mixing with water to get semi solid slurry, which is passed through the rollers, where it gets pressed to form paper boards. The water 2 squeezed from the rollers is taken back and recycled in the process. No chemicals are used in the process. It is also stated that the paper boards thus formed were kept in open area for natural drying and the dried paper boards were cut into required size and despatched. No waste water was found being let out of the premises. No air emission was also found to be let out of the process and the trimmed board wastes were taken back for recycling. It is also stated that no solid waste was found to be discharged outside the premises and water samples were collected at various open wells and bore wells in the surrounding area as suggested by the applicant. It is also stated that the results of analysis of water sample of the complainant and other wells located near M/s. Thirusul Paper and Boards are mostly same and there is not much deviation and the value of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the bore well located inside the Eswaran Temple, nearby the unit of Aathiswara Paper and Boards was on higher side. However, the abandoned/ unused well water shows TDS value of 4228 mg/l. which is still more on higher side. No agricultural activities were observed in the vicinity. Both the units applied for consent to operate through online on 14.12.2016 and the consent was issued online on 06.01.2017.

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their reply contended that the proprietor of respondent No.3 is the mother of the proprietor of respondent No.4. It is contended that no chemicals are used in the industries of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, there is no question of letting out of any chemicals from their industries. The case that due to the discharge of the industrial waste into the agricultural lands, the yield from the agricultural crops is reduced, is denied. The respondents contended that their industries do not belong to red category but come under green category and they are not causing any air pollution or water pollution and therefore there is no merit in the application. They contended that they are obtaining raw materials from TNPL which are mixed with water and transformed into semi solid form, which is passed through rollers where it gets squeezed and pressed to form papers boards. The paper boards so formed in the rollers, are taken and placed in open area within the industry for solar drying. The dried paper boards are cut into the required size according to the requirement of the customers. All the cutting and processing waste paper boards are again recycled and reused in the manufacturing process and no solid waste is discharged outside the industry. The water released out of the process, is taken back to the same water tank and reused in the process again and no water is discharged either on land or outside. Thus, no trade effluent is generated at any stage of the manufacturing process. No boiler or other smoke / fume emanating machineries are installed in the industry. The consent as provided under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 have already been obtained. According to the respondents, the applicant trespassed into the property of the 3rd respondent and hence she filed O.S.No.250 of 2016 before the District Munsif Court, Karur for declaration of her title and recovery of possession of the property and due to the said reason the application is filed which is without any merit.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondents wereheard.

The only point for consideration is whether the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are discharging any industrial effluent into the agricultural land thereby polluting the agricultural land or causing any water or air pollution.

The applicant filed a written argument note contending that respondent Nos.3 and 4 industries are using chemicals and the trade effluents are being discharged into the agricultural land and the chemical discharged from the industry is adversely affecting the agricultural land, water and air. It is also contended that the water, both surface and underground, are polluted by the discharge of industrial waste and the agricultural yield has come down and the water is not even fit for consumption. It is therefore argued that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are to be restrained from operating their units.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that they are not using any chemical and are not discharging any solid or liquid effluent into the land or water body or agricultural land and not causing any pollution whosoever.

It is argued that the application is filed only because of grouse that a suit has been filed by respondent No.3 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the land trespassed by the applicant. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that on inspection it was found that there is no discharge of any trade effluents from the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and no pollution is being caused.

Apart from raising allegation that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are using chemicals and the trade effluents containing chemicals are discharged into the agricultural land causing damage to the agricultural crops and adversely affecting the water both surface and underground, applicant has not produced any material to support the contention. When the respondent Nos.3 and 4 deny the case of the applicant that they are using chemicals, it is for the applicant to prove that they are using the chemicals and causing pollution. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim. On the other hand, the reply filed by R1, establishes that on receipt of the complaint from the applicant raising similar allegations, the officials of the Board inspected the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The findings recorded based on the inspection are as follows:-

"A. The units were under operation.

B. These units were manufacturing Paper Boards using the paper wastes such as ETP sludge, d-inking plant sludge and pith material obtained from the M/s. Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kagithapuram, Karur District.

C. The wastes obtained from TNPL were subjected to thorough mixing with water to get semi solid slurry, which is passed through the rollers, where it gets pressed to form paper boards. The water squeezed from the rollers was taken back and recycled in the process. There are no chemicals used in the process.

D. The paper boards thus formed were kept in open area for natural drying.

E. The dried paper boards were cut into required sizes and despatched.

F. No waste water was found to be let out of the premises.

G. No air emission was found to be let out of the process.

H. The trimmed board wastes were taken back for recycling.

I. No solid wastes was found to be discharged outside the premises."

In the light of the findings of the Board, based on the inspection, it is clear that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not using any chemicals in their industry. No waste water is being discharged either into the land or water body or in the agricultural fields as claimed by the applicant. The units are not causing any air pollution and no solid wastes are also discharged outside the premises. In fact, the details of the process disclosed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their reply are fully corroborated by the findings of the Board at that time of the inspection. The raw materials required for the industry of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are procured from TNPL, which are paper waste such as ETP sludge, de-inking plant sludge and pith materials. They are subjected to thorough mixing with water to get semi solid slurry which is then passed through rollers, where it gets squeezed and pressed to form paper boards. The water thus collected from the rollers is taken back and recycled. The paper boards so formed, are subjected to natural drying in open area. The dried paper boards are then cut into required size and dispatched. The trimmed board wastes are taken back for recycling. The water squeezed from the rollers is not discharged into the land and instead, it is recycled and used again.

On the materials we find no chance for any pollution being caused by the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4. We find no material whatsoever to restrain the operation of the units of respondent Nos.3 and 4, as they are operating the units with all the required consent. Even the applicant has no case that they are operating without the required consent. The application can therefore only be dismissed.

The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.