AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed against the orders of the Board dated 06.07.2017 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 directing the closure of the unit as well as direction to the Electricity Department to disconnect the electricity supply. It is an admitted case that the appellant unit was given consent by the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (Board) for the purpose of manufacturing semi-finished leather using dry process. However, it appears that the appellant has used mechanism for wet leather processing (chrome tanning). Considering that such conduct of the appellant is not only in violation of the conditions of consent but also it amounts to causing environmental damage, the Board has issued a show cause notice to the appellant in January, 2017.
As it is seen in the impugned order of the Board, in response to the said notice, the appellant has replied clearly stating that no wet process will be carried out in their unit and no infrastructure is used for carrying out such wet process. In that letter the appellant has made a request for renewal of "consent" for dry process. It appears that there was a personal hearing conducted by the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (M) Trichy, on 22.03.2017. During the personal hearing, the appellant has given assurance not to carry out wet process and to operate wet process only after obtaining "consent" for wet process from the Board. On a further inspection by the District Environmental Engineer, Trichy dated 17.05.2017 it was observed that the unit was under operation and carrying out processing of wet leathers (chrome tanning) as against the consented product of manufacturing of semi finished leather (dry process) and the trade effluent is discharged without treatment. It was in those circumstances, taking note of the blatant violation, the impugned order of the closure of the unit as well as direction to disconnect the electricity supply came to be passed by the Board.
Even though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that wet process has never been carried out by the appellant, we are unable to go against the finding of the District Environmental Engineer in the Report dated 17.05.2017 wherein he has categorically stated that processing of wet leathers (chrome tanning) was going on. Therefore, atleast from January, 2017 till May 2017 there has been a violation by the appellant.
The Board has also stated in its reply dated 29.08.2017 reiterating the report of the District Environmental Engineer, Trichy. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Board has stated that the District Environmental Engineer, Trichy during inspection carried out on 08.08.2017 noticed that the electricity to the appellant unit has been disconnected and the appellant has removed the 10 HP motors - 2 Nos. attached with the drum.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also submit that the machinery which is stated to have been installed for the wet process has been removed.
The learned counsel appearing for the Board would submit that by virtue of the removal of the said machines, it is not possible for the appellant to run the wet process.
Admittedly, the renewal for "consent" for dry process is pending with the Board. Even though it is true that the appellant has removed the two 10 HP Motors, which have been used for wet process and now he can carry on only the dry process, the fact stated above clearly shows that there has been breach of conditions which may be for few months. Therefore, we are of the considered view that even though the violation is for a limited period of few months, breach has been committed by the appellant causing environmental impact.
In view of the above, we direct the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) under "polluter pays" principle by depositing the amount with The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board and after the deposit of the amount, the Board shall pass appropriate orders and consider the application for renewal of consent" for dry process and also direct the Electricity Department to restore the electricity connection. We make it clear that after renewal of consent, the Board shall continue to regularly monitor the functioning of the unit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in case if any violation is noticed again.
With the above direction, both the appeals stand disposed