V.K. Mani v. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardGuindy, Madras – 322 & Ors
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Oct 2009
- Bench
- PRABHA SRIDEVAN, M SATHYANARAYANAN
Outcome
Disposed of
The writpetition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the additional typed set of papers filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find the Emission Standardsfor brick kiln which are notified under the Environment (Protection)Act, 1986. They dealt with the Standards fixed for emission with regard to Small, Medium and…
- Para 88. We hope the Pollution Control Board will ensure that these guidelines are adhered to not only by the third respondent but all the brick kilns and also with regard to the Emission Standards for Brick Kilns which has been extracted above, if applicable. The…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 23-10-2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANANW.P.NO.1064 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009V.K. Mani... Petitioner Vs.
The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardGuindy, Madras – 322. The District Environmental EngineerTamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardSakthi Road, Erode3.The Velmurugan Brick ChamberRepd by its partnerGnapathypalayam, Erode taluk ... Respondents WP 1064/2009: Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and2 from permitting the 3rd respondent from operating the brick Kilnindustry at S.No.741/1A1B, Punjai, Kalamangalam Village, ModakurichiPanchayat Union, Erode Taluk and District. For petitioner ::Mr. V. Raghavachari For respondents::Mr. Ramanlal for RR1 & 2Mr. Bharathidasan for R3ORDER(Order of the Court is made by Prabha Sridevan,J.)This writ petition is filed in public interest by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agriculturist. He is aggrieved by the brick kiln industry belonging to the third respondent adjacent to his land. According to him, the dust emanating from the brick kiln chamber makes agricultural operation in the neighbouring fields very difficult. According to him, these activities have destroyed the environment leaving the farmers in distress. It is also alleged that the third respondent is using battery waste, which contains chemical substances, which make the land unproductive. Consent was granted to the thirdrespondent’s brick kiln on 31-03-2003 imposing certain conditions. Since the petitioner found that none of these conditions were complied with, he challenged the consent order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by giving the liberty to the petitioner to move the Board if there is any deterioration in the environment.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though no consent had been given from 2003 to 2007, yet the industry continued to operate and the Pollution Control Boardturned a blind eye to the activities of the third respondent. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the informed received by him under the Right to Information Act. It is also submitted by him that the Pollution Control Board does not seriously take steps especially when complaints are given and that they aresome times lax for reasons best known to them. The learned counsel also referred to the National Emission Standards for brick kilns which incorporated guidelines for better working in brick kiln industry and submitted that though in this writ petition there is reference only to the survey No.741/I-IB, Kalamangalam Village, in the interest of the environmental well being, the Pollution ControlBoard should be directed to implement the National Standardswherever there are brick kilns.
The learned counsel appearing for the PollutionControl Board submitted that brick kilns do not generate any trade effluent and originally the consent was given by the DistrictEnvironmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Erodeboth under the Water Act and the Air Act. But after 31-03-2004,consent was not renewed. The learned counsel submitted that it is not as if the Pollution Control Board remained unconcerned about what was happening and in fact on 30-11-2007, a letter had been addressed to the third respondent Unit to comply with certain conditions and they are as follows: "i. The unit shall lay a metal road inside the premises to minimize dust pollutionii. The unit shall develop a green belt for 25% of thetotal area of the unit premises. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iii. The unit shall regularly spray water using sprinkler arrangement in the dust prone area (soil heaps). "According to the learned counsel, when recently the inspection was done on 08-04-2001, it was observed that as on date the air pollution control measures have been provided and the other conditional measures have also been complied with.
The learned counsel for the third respondent-Unitsubmitted that the litigation is not bona fide and that it is instigated by personal enmity. According to the learned counsel, every year application for renewal was given in time, but the Pollution Control Board has not given its consent within time, for which the third respondent cannot be blamed. According to the learned counsel, in obedience to the directions given by the Boardall conditions have been complied with and a chimney has been erected to a height of 22 metres, metal road has been laid, trees have been planted and a sprinkler has been installed to spray water to suppress the dust pollution. According to the learned counsel, there are no complaints from any other land owner except the petitioner.
The counter filed by the Pollution Control Board shows clearly that there was some justification in the petitioner'scomplaint because as per their own counter there were frequent complaints received by the Board alleging pollution. At the sametime, the counter also shows that on 08-04-2009, the Tamil NaduPollution Control Board officials have found that the Pollutionchecking measures have been installed.
In the additional typed set of papers filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find the Emission Standardsfor brick kiln which are notified under the Environment (Protection)Act, 1986. They dealt with the Standards fixed for emission with regard to Small, Medium and Large units and the Stack Heights are recommended for optional dispersion for particular matter.
The Emission Standards and the guidelines are extracted herein: "74. EMISSION STANDARDS FOR BRICK KILNS:I. Minimal National Emission Standards for BrickKilns: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SizeKiln CapacityMaximum limit for the concentration of particulate matter (mg/Ncu.m)123SmallLess than 15,000 bricks per day(less than 15 ft trench width)1000Medium15,000-30,000 bricks per day (15-22 ft trench width)750Large More than 30,000 bricks per day(more than 22 ft trench width)750 Note: The above particulate matter emission limits are achievable by installing fixed chimney high draught kilns and/or settling chamber.II. Stack Height Regulation: The following stack heights are recommended for optional dispersion of particulate matter: Kiln CapacityStack Height12Less than 15,000 brick per day (less than 15 ft trench width)Minimum stack height of 22mor, Induced draught fan operating with minimum draught of 50mm water gauge with 12mstack height15,000-30,000 brick per day(15-22 ft trench width)Minimum stack height 27m inwith gravitational settling chamber or Induced draught fan operating with minimum draught of 50mm water Gauge with 15mstack heightMore than 30,000 brick per day(more than 22 ft. trench width)Minimum stack height of 30mwith gravitational settling chamber or Induced draught fan operating with minimum draught of 50 mm Water III. Existing moving chimney bull's trench kilns shall be dispensed with by the 30th June, 2002 and no new moving chimney kilns shall beallowed to come up: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that only those brick kilns shall be given extension of time who shall furnish affidavits to the concerned authority in the State giving approval for brick kilns to the effect that the prescribed standards shall be complied by them by the 30th June,2002, and no, further extension of time shall be sought by them: Provided further that the units shall submit a bank guarantee for the amount specified below, to the respective State PollutionControl Board for completing the conversion within the period so specified and in case of its non-compliance, the amount of bank guarantee shall be fortified: - Large scale brick kilns - Rs.30,000 (more than 30,000 bricks per day) - Medium scale brick kilns - Rs.20,000 (between 15,000 to 30,000 bricks per day) - Small scale brick kilns- Rs.10,000 (less than 15,000 bricks per day)IV. Considering the immediate need to protect the top soil and to finds ways for safe disposal/utilization of flyash, it is provided that from the 1st January, 1997 all brick manufacturing units withina radius of 50 kms from any thermal power plant, shall utilizeflyash in optimal proportion for making bricks.
Guidelines for Better Working and Housekeeping in Brick KilnIndustryThese are: "Maximum Coal feed size should be limited to 10 mm. Coal feeding cycle should not be more than 20 minutes. Coalfeeding should be done using mechanical feeder as this would ensure more efficient burning of coal and lower the emissions. Brick kiln should be established preferably at least two kmaway from residential areas and fruit gardens. Installation of brick kiln should not be allowed in sensitive areas as notified by State Pollution Control Boards under NationalAir Quality Standard. To avoid clustering of brick kilns in a locality, the distance between two kilns should be more than one km. More and more agro industrial wastes should be used to replace https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clay so as to conserve good quality solid for agricultural purposes. Use of coal with more than 35 percent ash content should be avoided.
There is no significant noise pollution from manually operated brick kilns which form the bulk of brick industry. However, there are few semi mechanised brick making plants which generate some noise. Heavy machinery should be mounted on anti-vibration mounting. Regular servising and maintenance of plant and machinery should be ensured. Ear muffs should be used by the workers. The ash layer on the top of kiln should be covered with alayer of fired bricks or special tiles to check disposal of dust and for better thermal insulation which will also reduce discomfort to the workers. Excess ash produced every day should be removed daily to a close by disposal site. A double wall should be constructed around the kiln and the gap should be used to fill the ash produced from the kiln. The brick works should be within covered space as far as possible. To minise generation of fugitive emissions, the passage around the bricks should be paved with fired bricks.
A major source of heat loss in the kiln is through steel covers placed over fire holes. These covers are made of single layer steel plate. Thermal insulation should be provided to these covered by making them double walled and packing with asbestos fibres. To improve combustion efficiency and also to reduce source emissions, properly graded coal should be used. The following precautions need to be taken to protect the workers though partially from the effect of heat and high dust pollution prevailing on the brick kilns: Covering of the kiln top with a continuous layer of bricks ortilesA full face mask is to be provided to workers to protect their eyes, ears and nose. Hand gloves are to be provided to workers to protect their hands from ill effects of coal handling and also from hot flue gases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ coming out of fire hole during the charging Special coat/apron and shoes are to be provided to the workers for their protection against these hazards. "
Operative part
We hope the Pollution Control Board will ensure that these guidelines are adhered to not only by the third respondent but all the brick kilns and also with regard to the Emission Standards for Brick Kilns which has been extracted above, if applicable. The writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarglpTo1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardGuindy, Madras – 322. The District Environmental EngineerTamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardSakthi Road, Erode+1cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate Sr 56711+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate Sr 56455+1cc to Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Advocate Sr 55928LA(CO)km/10.11.W.P.NO.1064 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writpetition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 23 Oct 2009. The bench was PRABHA SRIDEVAN, M SATHYANARAYANAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.