AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The counsel for the parties are present. The applicants have come forward with an application to ventilate their grievances by making the averments, whereby they sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to stop construction of the additional 422 dwelling units and not to connect the sewage lines of these additional units to the existing Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and also for a direction to the 3rd respondent to ensure proper functioning of the existing STP by the 1st and 2nd respondents and take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for violation of the conditions contained in the Consent order. On notice, all the 3 respondents have entered appearance and filed their respective reply.
It is not in controversy that pursuant to an approval, a residential complex was built by 1st respondent and a STP was also constructed under Phase-I following the Consent granted therefor. One of the main contentions put forth by the applicants is that it was without Consent and if any Consent was obtained by the 1st respondent in the past it is thorough violation of conditions thereon and insofar as the 2nd grievance ventilated by the applicant is that the 1st respondent has commenced and carrying on its constructional activities in Phase-II and is likely to connect the sewage lines to the existing residential complex to that event without any Consent whatsoever. Under such circumstances, necessary action in that regard was called for. Though the 1st respondent flatly denied the case of the applicant in toto, subsequently, he came forward to give an undertaking that the dwelling units under Phase-II will not be connected to the existing STP in Phase-I and a separate STP would be provided. The said undertaking was recorded and insofar as the apprehension of the applicants that the units under Phase-II are likely to be connected to the STP in Phase-I and that too, without consent, it would suffice to record the undertaking given by the 1st respondent as found in Paragraph 8 of the reply.
Pending the application, pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal, the concerned District Environmental Engineer (DEE) made an inspection of the STP on 25.11.2015 in the presence of the parties and has filed a report. It is pertinent to point out that the report is to the effect that no open discharge of sewage in the adjoining lands has been noticed by him and the unit utilises the treated sewage partly for toilet flushing and gardening and excess treated sewage is let into CMWSSB Sewer line and hence, the allegation made by the applicant contra has got to be rejected. But the contention put forth by the counsel for the applicants is that pursuant to an inspection made in the month of August 2015, a report was filed by the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (Board) to the effect that the untreated sewage is connected to sewer line and direct sewage water was drained next to their complex.
After hearing the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, the Tribunal thought it fit to issue a direction to the concerned DEE to make another inspection and file a report. Pursuant to which, he made an inspection on 25.11.2015 and filed a report, which is referred to above. Thus, it would be quite clear that subsequent to the 1st inspection made in August 2015, the 1st respondent has taken steps to control the pollution as evident from the report and thus, insofar as the allegations, in respect of the STP, as on today do not have any force. Insofar as the apprehension of the applicant that the units under Phase-II are likely to be connected to the STP in Phase-I, the undertaking given by the 1st respondent in Paragraph 8 of the reply, as stated above, would suffice. However, the 3rd respondent Board is directed to monitor the strict compliance and ensure that all the conditions are strictly followed in letter and spirit by the 1st and 2nd respondents and insofar, the undertaking recorded as above in future, if there is any contravention, there cannot be any impediment for the Board to initiate necessary action there on.
It is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that renewal application for Consent in respect of the STP under Phase-I was pending in the hands of the Board and the same is under process. From the report dated 18.8.2015 filed by the concerned DEE, it is quite evident that the original Consent was valid up to 31.3.2013. When it was reported that the 1st respondent unit was yet to apply for renewal of Consent, a direction was issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce evidence and substantiate their statement that have already applied for renewal of Consent. The documents made available would clearly indicate that the application was made on 17.9.2013 and a sum of Rs.3,48,040/- was paid by way of cheque in favour of the Board and subsequently, an application for the second time was made on 18.7.2014 along with a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,48,040/- in favour of the Board. Thus, it could be seen that the applications were made twice and they remain in the hands of the Board and renewal Consent is yet to be given. When the necessary applications were filed along with the required amount deposited, non-consideration of the application by the Board cannot be taken as advantage by the applicants to state that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent Board or they have not strictly followed the law. Taking into consideration that the STP is actually connected to the residential area in Phase-I and also the records now placed before the Tribunal clearly show that the consumption of electric energy in September 2015 indicating that the STP is under operation. The last report of the Board has also stated that it would support the case of the respondents 1 and 2.
Therefore, it is not a fit case to award cost to the respondents 1 and 2. With the above observations, the application is disposed of. No cost.