AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for applicant as well as the respondents particularly the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the project proponent and the learned counsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board.
The issue raised in this application is against the operation of the 1st respondent in handling, storing and transporting the sludge/treated effluents/toxic chemicals in the H.S.Z of Unamanjeri Reserve Forest. Even though the applicant has raised various issues which are according to him violative of the law relating to environment, we are informed by the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent that exactly similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by one Mr.G.Danasekaran by filing Writ Petition No.17715 of 2009. It is relevant to note that in that Writ Petition the present 1st respondent who was the 4th respondent therein has specifically raised an issue that the writ petitioner has not come to the court with bonafide intentions.
It is stated that the writ petitioner was associtated with the present applicant Parameshwaran and in fact it is stated that the said Parameshwaran who is the applicant herein has caused damage to the compound walls of the 1st respondent, resulting in a police complaint and there was an investigation, after which the applicant was arrested. It appears that the applicant has also moved the court of District Munsiff, Chengalpattu by filing a suit in O.S.No. 82 of 2008 for permanent injunction against the 1st respondent herein not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and the said suit is still pending. Having not satisfied he has instigated the writ petitioner to file a writ petition stated above. This was the averment made by the 1st respondent herein, in the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court.
While disposing the said writ petition the Hon'ble Division Bench has relied upon the inspection conducted by the Board on 22.5.2009 and 7.9.2009 during which the Board has found the following points in its report:-
a) The unit was carrying out the wet operation
b) All the units of Effluent Treatment Plant were under operation.
c) RO system and solar evaporation pans are also under Operation
d) The unit has stored the Effluent Treatment Plant sludge in a closed shed that too on an impervious platform {Accommodated quantity of Effluent Treatment Plant sludge as on date is 7 T (appx)}
d) The unit has reused the RP Permeate for process and RO reject is evaporated through accelerated solar evaporation pan
e) Discharge of trade effluent into outside the premises/on industry's land was not observed.
f) The unit has achieved zero liquid discharge in respect of trade effluent.
g) The unit has maintained the log book for the operation and maintenance of Effluent Treatment Plant and RO.
Having relied upon the contents of the report, the Hon'ble Division Bench has come to a conclusion that the Board was satisfied that there was sufficient compliance, the Hon'ble High Court has specifically stated that the report shows that there is zero liquid discharge and there are no statutory violations by the project proponent. For better understanding of the finding by the Hon'ble Bench it is relevant to extract para number 6 of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court dated 5.3.2010.
"The report of inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board on 7.9.2009 clearly shows that the 4th respondent has achieved the zero liquid discharge in respect of the treated effluent. There was no statutory violations as pointed out by the Pollution Control Board, in the last inspection. When the unit has complied with the directions given by the Pollution Control Board and there was no act of pollution at the instance of the unit, no direction can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is always open to the Pollution Control Board to monitor the functioning of the 4th respondent and in case of violation, the Pollution Control Board is at liberty to take appropriate action on merits and in accordance with law."
With the said finding, the Hon'ble High Court has refused to issue a writ on mandamus and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the present application has been filed by the applicant herein raising environmental issue.
The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board has filed a report on 12.3.2014. The report again reiterates the points stated before the Hon'ble High Court and specifically state that there was further inspection of the 1st respondent unit by the Board on 20.6.2013, 2.8.2013 and 6.8.2013. During the inspection it was noticed that the unit was in operation. The report states that the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), Reverse Osmosis & Reject Management System provided by the unit were also in operation. Further it was found that the unit achieved zero discharge system and that the hazardous sludge generated from the treated wastewater is stored in a closed shed and disposed through common facilitator M/s Tamil Nadu Waste Management Ltd., at Gummidipoondi for landfill and necessary authorisation has also been issued to the unit for disposal of hazardous waste and the authorization was valid up to 25.1.2015 and it is stated by the project proponent that the authorisation is valid even as on date.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant however has chosen to rely upon an affidavit filed by the 8th respondent, DFO, Chenglepet division. In the said affidavit dated 10.3.2014. The 8th respondent has stated that the 1st respondent has encroached upon certain portions of the reserve forest. In fact he has stated that during inspection it was found that an extension of 0.0115 ha of land in survey no.55 and part of survey no.56 in Unaimanjeri Reserve Forest, Tambaram range was encroached by the 1st respondent unit.
Taking advantage of the said statement made by the 8th respondent, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the encroachment caused environmental hazard. However, to our dismay the DFO has not chosen to state so. Be that as it may, encroachment is not within the domain and jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is for the 8th respondent to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent if such encroachment is made by him in the manner known to law.
As environmental court, this Tribunal is concerned only with the substantial issues relating to environment provided they are under any one of the seven statutes mentioned in the schedule to the NGT Act of 2010. In as much as the concerned records of the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board which was atleast on one occasion accepted by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras, and even as on date the Board has taken the stand that the 1st respondent project proponent is showing zero discharge in respect of its effluents, we are unable to conclude that the 1st respondent is either a defaulter or a consistant consisting culprit in causing environment disorder. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, an inspection report stated to have been conducted by the Board on 30.1.2002 is certainly of no help to the applicant for the simple reason that it was considered by the Hon'ble High Court before passing the order stated above. Even otherwise in our considered view the report is not worthy of any consideration. The inspection officer who has chosen to state that treated effluent was found causing water pollution, has not explained with proper analysis as to what is in excess of tolerant limit. For a better understanding we extract the exact wordings of the inspecting officer which is as follows:
At the time of inspection the unit was in operation and the treated trade effluent was found stagnated within the unit premises in the vicinity of the complainant's agri fields, causing water pollution. Further, the ROA of treated effluent sample collected during Sept 00 to August' 01reveals that the parameters such as TSS, TDs, Chloride, Sulphate, BOD, Sulphide, Ammonical nitrogen, phenolic compound, total chromium and boron are exceeding the tolerance limits prescribed by the Bd.
The contents of the report are self-sufficient to decide that the same is unworthy of relevance by any competent court of jurisdiction. Moreover, subsequent to that atleast three inspections have been carried out by the Board wherein they have found that the 1st respondent unit is not a violator.
In such view of the matter, taking into consideration the overall view, we are unable to accept any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Further we make it clear that it is always open to the applicant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law in respect of encroachment and other issues as and when the 1st respondent causes any violations, which may even include the extraction of ground water. Except making such observation the applicant is not entitled to any relief claimed in this application no.50 of 2013.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. No Cost.