Shri N. Silvans vs District Collector And Ors

The counsel for the parties are present. This application was taken on file pursuant to an order of transfer in W.P. (M.D) No. 3854 of 2013 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

On admission the respondents entered appearance and placed their respective reply.

The case of the applicant in short, is that the applicant is one of the residents of 100 families residing in Keezhavilagam, Kumarapuram Town Panchayat. The 5th respondent is carrying on a Rubber Sheet Drying Unit with machines. For the said purpose, he has been using chemicals in abundance which has caused high degree of pollution and also degradation of environment due to the discharge of wastewater from the rubber sheet drying machines. He has made a hole in the wall of the Unit where the machines are located and a connection is made to a nearby Odai where the wastewater is discharged. It is pertinent to point out that the Odai water mingles with the Thiruvithancode channel and thus creates a lot of health hazards. Though representations were made to the 4th respondent, Kumarapuram Town Panchayat, they have not taken any steps to stop the same. Thereafter a petition was given to the District Collector on 17.12.2012 but no action was forthcoming. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for making the application before the Tribunal.

The 5th respondent blatantly denied all the allegations above recorded and would submit that all preventive and precautionary measures have been taken and no pollution is caused as contended by the applicant, though he has been carrying on the rubber sheet drying Unit.

Pending the application, the District Environmental Engineer concerned was directed to make an inspection and file a report and he brought to the notice of the Tribunal the fact that the 5th respondent Unit has been causing pollution. At this juncture, the 5th respondent undertook to take necessary preventive measures before the next hearing. It was reported then by the 5th respondent that measures have already been taken. Even after that, the applicant not satisfied with the measures taken, continued to pursue his compliant. Under such circumstances, sufficient time was given to the 5th respondent to take necessary preventive measures. A direction was issued to the concerned District Environmental Engineer to make an inspection of the Unit and file a status report. Accordingly, the concerned District Environmental Engineer made an inspection of the Unit of the 5th respondent on 16.7.2014 and has filed a report.

The Tribunal heard the counsel for both sides and also heard the concerned District Environmental Engineer who is present. As noticed above, the only grievance ventilated by the applicant is that the 5th respondent Unit which is carrying on Rubber Sheet Drying has caused pollution by discharging water mixed with chemicals and the same reaches the Odai. When it was denied by the 5th respondent, the first inspection of the District Environmental Engineer concerned was made and from the report filed it was noticed that there was pollution as contended by the applicant. At that stage, the 5th respondent undertook to take necessary preventive and protective measures to stop pollution. Sufficient time was also given to him and it was reported in the last hearing that this Unit is free from any pollution, which could be checked by the authorities. Hence, a direction was issued to the District Environmental Engineer concerned to make an inspection of the Unit on 16.7.2014 and file a report. It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the District Environmental Engineer concerned in his inspection report which runs as follows:

" 1. The Unit was in operation.

The smoke house consists of a smoke shed where the rubber sheets are loaded and a chamber below the shed called fire box where the fuel is burnt so as to heat / dry the rubber sheet. Fire wood was used as fuel in the fire box.

The rubber sheets were hanged on wooden rods within the smoke shed. The wooden rods were placed in position in holes provided on the walls of the smoke house. The top of the smoke house was covered with wooden planks over which tiled roof was provided.

The Unit has provided 2 stacks starting from the level of wooden cover of the smoke house.

The height of the stack from the ground level is about 10m.

A few minutes after firing of wood, smoke starts emanating through the stacks.

The Report would also add that the second inspection was made on 12.9.2014 with the following observations made:

" 1.The smoke house was not in operation.

The Unit has closed the holes on the walls by plastering the walls and also the gaps in the wooden top cover through which smoke was spreaded to the nearby houses.

The Unit has provided 2 stacks of height 10m for the smoke house and also provided bio gas plant for the treatment of waste water generated from the sheet making process."

As it could be seen from the inspection report dated 16.7.2014 it is clear that all the necessary preventive measures were not taken. But the second inspection report made on 12.9.2014 when the above observations were recorded it would be quite clear that as contended by the 5th respondent, necessary preventive measures have been taken.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any impediment to record the observations made by the District Environmental Engineer dated 12.9.2014 as stated above and on the strength of it accepting the same. There cannot any impediment for allowing the 5th respondent to carry on his Unit. It is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the 5th respondent Unit is kept closed by a seal affixed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In order to carry on the operation of the 5th respondent, the seal has got to be removed which is conceded by the District Environmental Engineer who is present this day. Hence, the District Environmental Engineer concerned is directed to remove the seal and the 5th respondent Unit is also permitted to carry on its activities. However, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to monitor the Unit and see that the 5th respondent Unit continues to carry on its operation free from pollution or complaint thereon.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

No cost.