Mr. T. Kanakaraj, Kalkumal Taluk vs Appellate Authority

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents including the Project Proponent. These appeals are filed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control dated 28.11.2014 by which the two appeals filed by the present appellant both under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were dismissed by confirming the original order of the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board, granting permission by way of 'consent to establish' to the 4th respondent herein, to manufacture 100 litres of Mango Juice and other fruit juices a day subject to various special and general conditions.

The appellant has mainly attacked the validity of the impugned order of the learned Authority on the ground that the learned Appellate Authority has failed to take note of different stand taken by the project proponent under various circumstances. It is the objection of the appellant that the 4th respondent, originally, when approached the authorities for the purpose of getting permission for completing construction, has stated that the purpose of building was for the manufacturing of mineral water. However, after completing the construction, the 4th respondent has approached the Pollution Control Board, seeking 'consent to establish' for manufacturing 100 litres per day of mango or other fruit juices. The 4th respondent while approaching the Department of Industries and Commerce for permission to carry on industrial activities has chosen to inform the Department that the permission is sought for, for the purpose of manufacturing of 200 tonnes and Mango Pulp. According to the appellant, this contradicting stand taken by the 4th respondent before different authorities has not been considered by the Learned Appellate Authority. It is also the stand of the appellant that while the property is in the name of the husband, the 'consent to establish' has been obtained from the Board in the name of his wife, who is a practising Doctor in a Private Hospital and therefore, the purpose of getting the consent is to misuse the consent for the purpose of drawing ground water and supplying the same to various purposes for commercial business.

According to the appellant, the 4th respondent has been in fact extracting and overdrawing water from the ground and exploiting the same for commercial benefit and the same is not permissible in law and that results in ground water depletion and lowering of the table. The said aspect has not been considered by the learned Appellate Authority at all.

On the other hand, it is the case of the 4th respondent Project Proponent that while the different stand taken by the 4th respondent before the authorities are factual on record, the 4th respondent could not carry on business of manufacturing of mango juice as per the terms and conditions given in the"consent to establish" by the Board. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that he has never drawn or overdrawn ground water at any point of time for commercial exploitation, of course, except for the use of the employees in the unit. He also undertakes that the 4th respondent will never over draw water for commercial exploitation and in the event of such action, the Board can always interfere and even cancel the consent given for the manufacturing of fruit juices. The learned counsel would further submit that actually these Appeals have become infructuous due to the subsequent events of the State Pollution Control Board in granting 'consent to operate' in the order dated 30.01.2015 upto 31.01.2015, However, he is unable to explain as to whether the 4th respondent has filed any application for renewal of "consent to operate''. The learned counsel would submit that it is because of the pending of the present appeals, the 4th respondent has not filed any application for renewal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would further submit that as on date there is no operation of the unit for any purpose. He would fairly submit that in the event of the Board renewing the 'consent to operate', the terms and conditions will be scrupulously followed.

The learned counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board would also submit that even though the 'consent to establish' and subsequent 'consent to operate', were given, the 4th respondent has not carried out any activity of manufacturing fruit juice. In so far as it relates to the complaints about the overdrawal of ground water, the Board has not received any complaint, the learned counsel appearing for the Board would submit that in the event of any complaint, the Board will take immediate action in not only closing down the unit but also imposing heavy amount on "polluter pays" principle as the overdrawal of water will result in depletion of ground water level which is a grave environmental concern.

After hearing of the respective counsel and also referring to the impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority, we are of the view that by virtue of the subsequent event of 'consent to operate' having been granted, we need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority. Suffice to state that if suitable directions are given to the Board as well as the 4th respondent, the interest of justice will be served especially in the protection of the environment.

Accordingly we dispose of the appeals with the following conditions:

It will be open to the 4th respondent to file an application for renewal of 'consent to operate' for the purpose of manufacturing 100 Lt. of Mango Juice or any other juice and on receipt of such application, the Board shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

It is only after the Board passes any order, the 4th respondent shall be entitled to proceed with the manufacturing activity strictly complying with the terms and conditions contemplated in such orders which may be passed by the Board. We make it clear that in the event of breach of any conditions made by the 4th respondent, the Board shall take appropriate action against the 4th respondent as per the provisions of Water and Air Acts.

Till the Board passes any order, the 4th respondent shall not carry on any manufacturing or any other activity especially extraction of ground water.

The 4th respondent shall not draw ground water for commercial purpose. However, sufficient quantity of water can be drawn for use of the occupants of the unit. The Board shall monitor the activites of the 4th respondent and if it is found that the 4th respondent is involved in the drawal of ground water for commercial purpose, the Board shall forthwith close the unit and also take all necessary actions in the manner known to law including imposing of heavy costs on the 4th respondent on the principles of "polluter pays".

With the above directions, the appeals stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.