AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for applicant as well as the respondents. As per the earlier direction of this Tribunal, the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is present in the Tribunal to explain some of the discrepancies we have pointed out earlier when it was informed to him about the report dated 28.4.2015 wherein a reference to the TDS high level caused by the applicant industry was made. He replied that the industry had not complied with requirements at one point in time. When asked about the various analysis reports dated 29.5.2014, 22.9.2014, 11.12.2014 and 19.1.2015 wherein the TDS levels are within the permissible limits, he explained that earlier the applicant industry was using Solar Evaporation Method and from 31.12.2014 they have switched over Mechanical Evaporation process to ensure zeor liquid discharge and that is the reason why during the course of time the TDS level in the water has come down.
Further, he has informed to this Tribunal that since the water is not absolutely free from TDS he had stated that the requirement is not complied. He has also informed to this Tribunal when a question was posed to him as to the scheme for remediation and reclamation for the damages already caused to the ground water, that the applicant himself has approached the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) which has submitted a report as to the methods to be followed and only when the applicant follows them there is a possibility for remediation and reclamation.
The learned senior counsel appearing for applicant would submit that as far as implementation of the CLRI recommendations are concerned, it is a matter of time and it would take a long time for the purpose of completely rectifying the deficiencies caused and he submitted that it will take a minimum of two years' time.
We have considered all the submissions and applied our mind to the issue involved in this case. The applicant is a manufacturer of leather chemicals and is Government undertaking supplying to the leather chemical division which manufactures chemicals required for leather industry which is concentrated in various parts of the state. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board by invoking its power under Section 33(A) of the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 has directed closure of the unit on the ground that on an inspection conducted by the D.E.E. Ambattur on 21.1.2014 the following defects were found out:
a) Increase in the production quantity more than the consented quantity. b) Unit has provided combined ETP for the leather Chemicals Division and Grease division.
c) ETP is not in operational condition due to high TDS in the effluent.
d) Unit has not revamped the ETP for the treatment of low TDS and high TDS effluent.
e) Entire trade effluent from the collection tank was being disposed through SEPs which are inadequate and in dilapidated condition paving way for seepage into the ground.
f) Unit has not provided high TDS effluent treatment system with modernised evaporation technologies, so as to achieve zero discharge of trade effluent.
Out of the deficiencies, it is found that one of them namely "entire trade effluent from the collected tank was being disposed through SEPs which are inadequate and dilapidated condition paving way for seepage into the ground is alarming."
The learned senior counsel appearing for applicant would submit that it is in order to rectify the said defects the unit has switched over to MechanicalEvaporation process from 31.12.2014 and as on date the TDS is within the permissible limits. He would submit as whatsoever other requirements are required for achieving zero discharge,all efforts will be taken to implement the measures.
He would also submit that in so far as it relates to the CLRI recommendations, the same will be scrupulously followed and implemented and the Board can at any time inspect the process of implementation. The Pollution Control Board has to monitor day to day disposal and discharge of the unit. In the event of any such defect found, the Board has to point out tothe unit so that they are rectified within a reasonable time. The officer of the Board would also submit that the implementation of CLRI scheme is a process which will take some time and the Board will scrupulously and honestly supervise the implementation of the recommendations and take appropriate action. He would also submit that the inspection of day to day disposal of effluents of the industry will be carried on periodically and the deficiencies will be informed to the industry for rectification andgive reasonable time failing which strict order will be passed by the authorities concerned. After hearing the submissions made by both the respective counsel and also taking note of the contents of the records filed before us which show that definitely there is an improvement in the mechanism adopted by the applicant industry,we are of the view that the applicant industry must be given one more opportunity for the purpose of not only rectifying the day to day effluent disposed system but also for implementing long time solution given by CLRI. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Tamil NaduPollution Control Board with the following directions:
We direct the applicant industry to restore its functioning and permit to carry on its operation, subject to the condition that the applicant unit shall start implementing the recommendations of CLRI regarding reclamation and remediation of ground water within a period of ten days from the receipt of the final CLRI report.
The applicant unit shall comply with all the requirements pointed out by the Pollution Control Board in the impugned order especially those relating to the disposal of trade effluents.
The above said activities contained in the first and second paragraphs shall be scrutinised by the Pollution Control Board periodically and be satisfied about the implementation of CLRI recommendations as well as the discharge of trade effluent by the applicant unit. We make it clear that in the event of the Pollution Control Board finding that there has been some delay the same has to be pointed out immediately to the applicant and give reasonable time for rectification. In spite of the same if the applicant is persistently disobeying the order, the Pollution Control Board shall pass an appropriate order in the manner known to law.
The application if any pending with the 1st respondent shall be considered on merit and in accordance with law and pass order in the manner known to law within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
We record our appreciation to the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for having been present and giving valuable suggestions.
The Application stands disposed.