AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the UP State PCB dated 15.09.2021 requiring the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 14,10,000/- for damage to the environment on 'Polluter Pays' principle.
The appellant is running a sugar mill at Ghosi, District Mau, U.P. The State PCB conducted inspection on 19.12.2020 through named 3rd party - IIT, BHU Varanasi and found that the discharge of effluent was not as per norms. It had BOD value 51 mg/l and oil and grease value of 56 mg/l. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 09.03.2021 was issued requiring the appellant to show cause why the unit be not closed and compensation required to be paid @ Rs. 30,000/- per day.
The appellant filed response dated 29.03.2021 to the effect that the ETP started working from 06.11.2020 while the unit started working on 07.12.2020. BOD was as per irrigation norms and only oil and grease were beyond norms. Laid down procedure of taking two samples was not followed. After the alleged violation, the appellant got the sample tested at its level from NABL accredited laboratory and sample was found to be as per parameters. It was unlikely that the sample will have oil and grease as alleged, in view of past adequacy report.
After considering the reply to the show cause notice, the State PCB vide order dated 15.09.2021 levied the compensation as above.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ETP was duly commissioned before starting of the crushing season and the procedure for taking samples was not followed. Two samples were not taken and a copy of the sample was not handed over to the appellant, as required. It is further submitted that the sample tested at its level from NABL accredited laboratory and sample was found to be as per parameters.
We have duly considered the submissions. We do not find any merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the impugned order. It is own case of the appellant, in response to the show cause notice dated 29.03.2021, that the ETP started working only from 06.11.2020 and the crushing season commenced on 07.12.2020. As per consent conditions laid down vide letter dated 15.03.2021 by the State PCB, the ETP is required to be stabilized one month prior to the start of the crushing season. Such consent condition is consistent with the MoEF&CC Notification dated 14.01.2016 under Schedule 1 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (available at http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Industry-Specific-Standards/Effluent/Sugar.pdf), as follows:
"xxx ............................xxx .................................................xxx
(ii) Waste water conservation and pollution control management
Establishment of cooling arrangement and polishing tank for recycling the excess condensate water to process or utilities or allied units.
Effluent Treatment Plant to be stabilized one month prior to the start of the crushing season and continue to operate one month after the crushing season.
During no demand period for irrigation, the treated effluent to be stored in a seepage proof lined pond having 15 days holding capacity only.
Flow meter to be installed in all water abstraction points and usage of fresh water to be minimized.
Suitable Air pollution control devices to be installed to meet the particulate matter emission standard.".
Based on the above, CPCB issued circular dated 05.09.2017 to all sugar mills in the country.
It is imperative that ETP is commissioned well in advance so as to be stabilised one month before crushing season. Infact to avoid violation of norms, it should be kept operational even during off season. In this regard, reference may be made to order of this Tribunal dated 01.09.2021 in OA No. 539/2019, Adil Ansari vs. M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., Asmoli (Sugar Unit) & Ors., as follows:
"157. We are further of the opinion that following directions are necessary for ensuring compliance of environmental norms by the units:-
i.) All the Units must ensure continuous running of ETPs even during the non-crushing season for the adequate maintenance of required bio-mass so that the ETP is able to take the load/shock when it receives the pollution load/effluent at the start of the crushing season."
In view of above, the appellant failed to stablise ETP as per required norms and consent conditions. Instead, it merely operationalised the ETP on 6.11.2021 which could not be taken to be stabilised one month before commencement of the season. Violation of consent conditions thus stands fully established even on own showing of the appellant. In these circumstances, even if the plea of the appellant that there was violation of procedure in taking samples is to be accepted, having regard to the case of the appellant itself that ETP was commissioned only one month prior to the crushing season and there was no time for stabilization one month before the season, as required. Thus, the impugned order is eminently justified.
The appeal is dismissed.