Madurai Coats Private Limited Coats India v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

2. Under the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005,the second respondent, who has earlier given consent order to thepetitioner/Unit under Section 26 of the Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity, "the Act"), havingfound, on inspection of the unit of the petitioner on 31.3.2005,that the unit has not taken action for segregation of high TotalDissolved Solids (TDS) dyebath effluent, has directed the unit tosegregate the high TDS effluent and to provide MechanicalEvaporator within six months, stating that the consent is validfor the period ending 31.12.2005.3. It was against the said order, the petitioner/Unit hasfiled an appeal before the first respondent under Section 28 ofthe Act, on the ground that the petitioner has been fully andconsistently meeting all the parameters concerned in respect ofeffluent discharge as per the norms prescribed by the Tamil NaduPollution Control Board, apart from stating that at present thepetitioner/Unit is running only Sewing Thread Plant and theEffluent Treatment Plant remains the same, which was grantedoriginally for discharge of effluents up to 7623 KLD during theperiod till 2002, when both fabrics and thread processing were inoperation, and that there is no water pollution caused by thepetitioner. The said appeal filed in Appeal No.55 of 2005 wasdismissed by the first respondent/ Appellate Authority, againstwhich the present writ petition is filed.4. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitionare that the petitioner is a factory in Ambasamudram, TirunelveliDistrict. Initially, the petitioner was manufacturing cottoncloth, cloth synthetic and sewing thread. In the year 2002, theother units have been closed, except the integrated sewing threadfactory. By an order dated 3.9.1997, the Pollution Control Boardhas given consent order subject to certain conditions, whichincludes that the Unit shall not carry out wet operations in theprocess in which trade effluent is generated; that notreated/untreated trade effluent or sewage shall gain access toTamirabarani river either directly or indirectly; that as thetreated trade effluent collected on certain dates did not satisfythe inland water standards, the petitioner was directed to furnishproposal for the improvement of the existing effluent treatmentplant; and that the petitioner was directed to formulate proposalsfor alternate disposal of treated trade effluent instead ofdischarging the same into the Tamirabarani River.5. It was against the said consent order dated 3.9.1997, thepetitioner earlier approached the Appellate Authority, in whichthe Appellate Authority has passed an order on 18.4.1998, statingthat if the water flow in River Tamirabarani is ten times or more https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the quantity of treated effluent water discharged from the Unit,the Unit was permitted to discharge the effluent into the river,however, if the river flow is less than ten times, the quantity oftreated effluent discharged by the unit should be let out in thechannel, after obtaining permission from the Public WorksDepartment authorities.6. It appears that some individuals have filed writ petitionin W.P.No.7410 of 1999 against the direction given to thepetitioner to discharge effluent into River Tamirabarani throughKodaimelalgaion Channel. The writ petition was disposed of on11.9.2004, on the basis of the submission made by the learnedcounsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board that the Boardhas been monitoring constantly to ensure that the treated tradeeffluent from the unit is not discharged into the RiverTamirabarani either directly or indirectly, when there is no flowor when the flow is less than ten times the flow of effluent fromthe industry.7. The writ petitioner has also approached the NationalEnvironmental and Engineering Research Institute (for brevity,"the NEERI") to evaluate the performance of the Effluent TreatmentPlant. The NEERI, Nagpur, after detailed study, has given threesuggestions to the petitioner/unit, namely:(i) segregation of high TDS effluent and evaporationof the same and the low TDS stream to be treatedthrough Effluent Treatment Plant suitablemodifications in the Existing Effluent TreatmentPlant; (ii) treatment without segregation of high TDSeffluent followed by Reverse Osmosis (R.O.); and (iii) same as alternative 2nd except that bio towersare not to be used and high power motors to be usedin all three aeration tanks.8. The petitioner/Unit has decided to accept the firstoption, as suggested by the NEERI, Nagpur, and furnished aproposal to the Board accordingly. However, the Board, findingthat the discharge of treated trade effluent into water sourceshould be avoided, requested the petitioner to furnish proposalfor R.O. System.9. In the said proposal, the petitioner/Unit has stated thatthey have closed the various activities of dyeing fabrics andfinishing, etc., and was presently engaged only in the productionof sewing thread, bleaching and mercerizing dyeing, and bleachingof interlining cloth, and therefore, the quantity of effluent hasreduced from the consented 1382 KLD to 300 KLD in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ domestic sewage and from the consented 7693 KLD to 3500-4500 KLDin respect of trade effluent.10. However, the Pollution Control Board, by itscommunication dated 24.9.2004, has informed the writ petitioner toimplement R.O. System in order to reuse the effluent and therebyconserve the water source. That was again reiterated by thePollution Control Board in the letter dated 28.12.2004, byrequesting the petitioner to furnish the proposal for R.O. System,so as to ensure zero discharge of effluent.11. It was thereafter the second respondent passed theimpugned order on 28.6.2005, directing the petitioner/Unit tosegregate the high TDS effluent and to provide mechanicalevaporator within six months time, against which, the petitionerfiled an appeal before the first respondent/ Appellate Authority.In the meantime, as per the direction of the Appellate Authority,the Anna University has studied the matter thoroughly andsubmitted a report in June, 2006.12. The Appellate Authority, having referred to the report ofthe Anna University and found that the TDS in the treated effluentis within the standards fixed by the Board, as the Board has fixed2100 mg/l, while the TDS in the treated effluent discharge fromthe petitioner's factory was found to be 1560 mg/l as per thereport of the Anna University, and taking note of the fact thatearlier the Board has directed the petitioner not to carry on wetoperation in the process which generates trade effluent and thatno treated/untreated sewage or trade effluent shall gain access toRiver Tamirabarani either directly or indirectly, by consideringthe question as to whether the Pollution Control Board is stillentitled to impose a further condition under the impugned orderfor segregation of high TDS effluent and for providing amechanical evaporator, again based on the report of the AnnaUniversity that even though the combined treated effluent iswithin the norms of 2100 mg/l, the maximum production of thepetitioner Unit will release about 4585 kg of inorganic salts intothe river every day and that for the average effluent discharge3486 KLD, the TDS of effluent discharged varies in the range of546 mg/l to 1412 mg/l, with the average being 1021 mg/l, resultingin discharge of 3559 kg of inorganic salts per day, and thatavoidance or segregation of high TDS effluent streams and theirtreatment by evaporation can avoid the discharge of about 80% ofthese salts into River Tamirabarani, concluded that the PollutionControl Board is entitled to prescribe such additional conditionsfor the purpose of ensuring zero discharge system for achievingbetter standards. The Appellate Authority also found that underSection 17(1)(l)(ii) of the Act, the Board is empowered to varyany order to construct new systems for the disposal of trade https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effluent and to adopt such remedial measures as are necessary toprevent, control or abate water pollution. The AppellateAuthority has also relied upon Section 27(2) of the Act to holdthat the Board can make any reasonable variation.13. Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner would submit that when on an earlier occasion the sameAppellate Authority has passed order on 18.4.1998 permitting thepetitioner/Unit to discharge effluent into River Tamirabarani ifthe water flow is ten times or more the quantity of treatedeffluent water discharged from the Unit, and in cases, where theriver flow is less than ten times, the quantity of treatedeffluent discharged by the unit should be let out in the channel,after obtaining permission from the Public Works Departmentauthorities, and the same has been confirmed by the Board inW.P.No.7410 of 1999 stating that the Board is watching that thesaid order of the Appellate Authority is fulfilled, there is noreason for the Board now to introduce a new suggestion tosegregate the High TDS effluent and to provide a mechanicalevaporator, under the impugned order.14. According to the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner, the Appellate Authority, having found that the TDS inthe treated effluent is within the standards fixed by the Board,ought to have directed the Board not to impose any furthercondition. The learned Senior Counsel would submit thatimposition of such further condition is only to prevent thepetitioner/Unit from functioning at all.15. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgmentsreported in Animal Feeds Diaries and Chemicals Limited v. OrissaState (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Board and Others, AIR1995 Orissa 84, J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170, Indian Council for Enviro-LegalAction v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 281, Style (Dress Land) v.Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1999] 7 SCC 89, apart from thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v.Union of India & Others, JT 1996 (7) SC 375=AIR 1996 SC 2715 andHatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2009] 1 MLJ 1131to substantiate his contention that, on the factual matrix, thepresent situation in respect of the petitioner/Unit cannot becompared with the case of Noyyal River Ayacutdars ProtectionAssociation and Another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others,2007 (1) LW 275.16. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.Ramanlal,learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the variousstatements of the Anna University in its Expert's report, invitedby the petitioner/Unit itself, that the Expert has found that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nearly four tons of chemicals have been let out in the RiverTamirabarani. It is also his submission, as it is found in thereport itself, that there is no permanent devise for the purposeof finding out the following of the directions of the Board, sincetemporary measures are always susceptible to manipulation. Hewould add that when large quantity of inorganic salt is let outinto the river, the Pollution Control Board cannot be expected toremain silent.17. He would refer to the sketch of the Anna University toshow that the discharge is being done instead of referring to theupstream at Harvey Pool to the main river and he would submit thatthe danger involved in such conduct of the petitioner is not lessand therefore, the finding of the Court in Noyyal River AyacutdarsProtection Association and Another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu& Others, 2007 (1) LW 275 is squarely applicable.18. He would also submit that in the absence of any propermechanism for the purpose of finding out the flow of water,whatever is stated by the petitioner is only by assumption and theBoard, being the authority to maintain pollution free atmosphere,has every right to impose conditions. He would also rely upon thejudgments in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India &Others, JT 1996 (7) SC 375=AIR 1996 SC 2715 and Indian Councilfor Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 281. 19. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissionsmade by the learned counsel on both sides and also referred to theimpugned order of the Appellate Authority, apart from the reportof the NEERI and the expert report of the Anna University.20. On fact, it may be true that the petitioner/Unit, whichwas carrying on the activities of Dyeing of Fabrics and Finishing,including the weaving, sizing activities, and was engaged in theproduction of Sewing Thread, has stopped the Benninger BleachingRange, Chain Merceriser, Desizing Machine, Thermosal Dyeing Range,Pad Steamer dyeing, sizing and weaving activities and Dyeing ofFabrics and Finishing some time in June, 2002 and thereafter, theUnit has been carrying on production only in Sewing Thread,bleaching and mercerizing dyeing of 500 Tons per month andbleaching of interlining cloth of 7 Lakhs Metres per month.21. As it is found by the Appellate Authority, it is alsotrue that the TDS in the treated effluent discharged from thepetitioner's Unit was found by the Anna University in its reportin the year 2006 at 1560 mg/l, while the standard fixed by theBoard itself is 2100 mg/l. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. It is also true that the Appellate Authority, on18.4.1998, has passed the following order:"If the water flow in River Tamirabarani is ten timesor more the quantity of treated effluent waterdischarged from M/s.Coats Viyella India Limited, theunit is permitted to let the discharged effluent intothe river. If the water flow is less than ten times,the quantity of treated effluent discharged by theunit, the treated effluent should be let out in thechannel after obtaining permission from the PublicWorks Department authorities."23. Subsequently, in a writ petition filed by a third partyagainst the above said direction of the Appellate Authority, thefollowing directions were issued by this Court by order dated11.9.2004:"Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned standing counsel forthe Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board relying uponthe report submitted that the Tamilnadu PollutionControl Board have been monitoring constantly toensure that the treated trade effluent from thefourth respondents unit is not discharged into theriver Tamirabarani either directly or indirectly whenthere is no flow or when the flow is less than 10times the flow of effluent from the industry. Inview of the said submission no further orders arerequired in this writ petition. The writ petition isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.10643/99is also dismissed."24. The very fact that that was only an interim arrangementis revealed by the conduct of the petitioner itself in approachingthe NEERI in the year 1999 for evaluation of the existing effluenttreated plant performance. It was at the instance of thepetitioner, as enumerated above, the NEERI, Nagpur, in the year1999, has suggested three options, out of which the petitioner hasaccepted to take up the first option of segregation of high TDSeffluent and evaporation of the same and the low TDS stream to betreated through Effluent Treatment Plant suitable modifications inthe Existing Effluent Treatment Plant. The complaint of the Boardis that in spite of accepting the first option suggested by theNEERI, Nagpur, and deciding to upgrade the effluent treatmentplant, the petitioner has taken no steps for the purpose ofsegregation of high TDS effluent and evaporation of the same.This fact is admitted by the petitioner, but its reasoning is thatdue to the reduction in the quantity of effluent from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consented 7693 KLD to 3500-4500 KLD due to closure of the apparelfactory in 2002, it is not necessary for them to go forsegregation of high TDS effluent and evaporation of the same.25. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the report ofthe Anna University of June, 2006. The Anna University, in itsreport, has clearly found as follows:"Even though the TDS of the combined treated effluentis within the norms of 2100 mg/l, the mass balanceindicate that for the maximum expected productionMCPL will release about 4585 kg of inorganic saltsinto the river every day. Further, for the averageeffluent discharge of 3486 KLD, the TDS of effluentdischarged as monitored by TNPCB varies in the rangof 546 mg/l to 1412 mg/l with the average being 1021mg/l resulting in discharge of 3559 kg of inorganicsalts per day. The avoidance or segregation of thehigh TDS effluent streams and their treatment byevaporation can avoid the discharge of about 80% ofthese salts into the river Tamiraparani."26. This finding of the Anna University makes it very clearthat the Anna University also wanted segregation of high TDSeffluent streams and evaporation. This report of the AnnaUniversity, which is of the year June, 2006, is much after theclosure of the various units of the petitioner, as stated above.When that is the finding of the Expert Body, it is of no use tocontend that the Appellate Authority has earlier permitted todischarge effluents into River Tamirabarani if the flow the wateris ten times or more the quantity of treated effluent waterdischarged from the Unit.27. In that regard, the Anna University, in its report ofJune, 2006, has stated as follows:"The treated trade effluent from MCPL is dischargedinto river Tamiraparani, when the flow in the riveris ten times (or more) than the quantity of tradeeffluent generated. In general, the water flow inthe river Tamiraparani is reported to vary in therange of 50 to 400 times the quantity of treatedeffluents. This is based on the water dischargedetails from the upstream dam and as such there is noprovision for measurement of flow in the river at thepoint of discharge of the effluents into the RiverTamiraparani." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. It is also stated in the report of the Anna University asfollows:"When the river flow is 10 times the effluent flowand the river water TDS is 100mg/l, the discharge ofeffluent with TDS of 2000 mg/l will increase the TDSin the river by 3 times i.e. to 300 mg/l. This willreduce to 139 mg/l at 50 times the river flow and 105mg/l at 400 times river flow.It is reported that if the flow in the river is lessthan 10 times the flow of trade effluent generatedfrom the industry, the treated trade effluent isdischarged into South Kodaimelalagian Channel(S.K.Channel) as ordered by the Appellate Authoritydated 18.4.1998. It is understood that the SKChannel under such situation will only be carryingthe effluents from MCPL and prolonged discharge ofsuch effluents for irrigation will have adverseimpacts in the long term."Therefore, it is not merely the TDS discharge within the norms of2100 mg/l, but also the other factors, which have been elicited bythe Expert Body of the Anna University, which appear to haveprompted the respondents to compel the petitioner/Unit tosegregate the high TDS effluent and to provide mechanicalevaporator.29. On the face of it, there is absolutely no contradictionin the stand of the respondents, especially when the report of theAnna University is clear that there is no provision formeasurement of flow in the river at the point of discharge of theeffluents into the River Tamirabarani and that the continuousdischarge, as ordered by the Appellate Authority in the orderdated 18.4.1998, would only have adverse effect on the irrigation.30. It is relevant to point out that as per the schematicdiagram of water source and effluent disposal at MCPL, as depictedby the Anna University in its report, it is seen that the sourceof water to the petitioner Unit is Papanasam at the lower dam onthe River Tamirabarani. The water drawn is stored in the naturalreservoir, namely Harvey Pool and supplied to the unit throughpipelines. The water is treated in the treatment plant beforeusing for the purpose. In addition to that, the Unit is alsohaving permission from Public Works Department to draw water tothe tune of 1.6 cusecs from the South Kolaimelalagan Channel(S.K.Channel) of the Tamiraparani River. The effluent from theprocess units is treated in an Effluent Treatment Plant and thetreated water is disposed back to river Tamiraparani or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.K.Channel depending on the dilution available in the River.If the treated water is not contaminated, there is no reason forthe petitioner Unit to have the water again circulated to HarveyPool for further use.31. In the Expert report, it is also stated that the MaterialLiquor Ratio (MLR) is adopted in manufacturing as follows:"The MLR of 1:8 is used for all package dyeingwhereas MLR of 1:20 is used for all hank dyeingoperations.The specific water consumption (311 L/kg) of the hankdyeing operation is very high as compared to theindustry norms due to the high MLR of the machines.MCPL may take steps to minimize the water consumptionfor hank dyeing operations by using low MLR dyeingmachines."32. In respect of the Monitoring Device, the Anna Universityhas reported as follows:"The unit has no continuous TDS monitoring device toassess the TDS level in the treated effluent at thepoint of discharge. However, it is having portableTDS meters to assess the TDS level in the treatedeffluent and the TDS level so measured on daily basisare recorded in the Register maintained for thatpurpose.It is advisable to have an online continuous TDSmonitoring device to continuously monitor and recordthe TDS levels of the treated effluent to ensure thatat no point in time, effluents exceeding the TDSlimits are disposed into the river Tamiraparani."33. The further observation of the Anna University in respectof installation of R.O. System with reject management, in fact,reiterates the first option of NEERI, Nagpur, which has not beenimplemented by the petitioner Unit. The observation of the AnnaUniversity is as follows:"Thus it may not be environmentally beneficial forMCPL to install RO plant for the treatment of alleffluent of 3500 to 4000 kLd. Instead MCPL may gofor segregation of high TDS streams and manage thesame by solar / mechanical evaporation as discussedin Section 21.0. This will further reduce the saltload discharge into the river by 80% even though thecurrent discharge of effluent is within the dischargenorm of 2100 mg/L." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34. In the light of the above technical finding of the AnnaUniversity, it is not possible to accept the contention of thelearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orderpassed by the first respondent is without any basis.35. The word "pollution" under the Act has a particularreference to "injurious to public health or safety", which is asfollows:"2 (e) "pollution" means such contamination of wateror such alteration of the physical, chemical orbiological properties of water or such discharge ofany sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid,gaseous or solid substance into water (whetherdirectly or indirectly) as may or is likely to,create a nuisance or render such water harmful orinjurious to public health or safety, or to domestic,commercial, industrial, agricultural or otherlegitimate uses, or to the life and health of animalsor plants or of aquatic organisms."36. Likewise, Section 17 of the Act, which deals with thefunctions of the Pollution Control Board, enumerates in Section 17(1)(l) as follows:"17. FUNCTIONS OF STATE BOARD.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, thefunctions of a State Board shall be - .....(l) to make, vary or revoke any order - (i) for the prevention, control or abatement ofdischarges of waste into streams or wells; (ii) requiring any person concerned to construct newsystems for the disposal of sewage and tradeeffluents or to modify, alter or extend any suchexisting system or to adopt such remedial measures asare necessary to prevent, control or abate waterpollution."Certainly, the said provision enables the Pollution Control Board,not only to make fresh order but also to change an order alreadymade, apart from revoking the earlier order, the reason being thatthe Board takes into consideration the changing patterns in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ industrial activities, etc., in consonance with the avowed objectof looking into the public health and hazard.37. Section 25(4) of the Act enables the Board to grantconsent subject to various conditions and also to refuse consentfor reasons to be recorded in writing. It is apt to referSections 25(1) and 25(4) of the Act, which are as follows:"25. RESTRICTIONS ON NEW OUTLETS AND NEW DISCHARGES. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, noperson shall, without the previous consent of theState Board, - (a) establish or take any steps to establish anyindustry, operation or process, or any treatment anddisposal system or any extension or addition thereto,which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluentinto a stream or well or sewer or on land (suchdischarge being hereafter in this section referred toas discharge of sewage); or (b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for thedischarge of sewage; or (c) being to make any new discharge of sewage: Provided that a person in the process of taking anysteps to establish any industry, operation or processimmediately before the commencement of the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act,1988, for which no consent was necessary prior tosuch commencement, may continue to do so for a periodof three months from such commencement or, if he hasmade an application for such consent, within the saidperiod of three months, till the disposal of suchapplication. ..........(4) The State Board may - (a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1),subject to such conditions as it may impose, being - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) ofsub-section (1) of section 25, conditions as to thepoint of discharge of sewage or as to the use of thatoutlet or any other outlet for discharge of sewage; (ii) in the case of a new discharge, conditions as tothe nature and composition, temperature, volume orrate of discharge of the effluent from the land orpremises from which the discharge or new discharge isto be made; and (iii) that the consent will be valid only for suchperiod as may be specified in the order, and any suchconditions imposed shall be binding on any person,establishing or taking any steps to establish anyindustry, operation or process, or treatment anddisposal system or extension or addition thereto, orusing the new or altered outlet, or discharging theeffluent from the land or premises aforesaid; or (b) refuse such consent for reasons to be recorded inwriting."38. Section 27 of the Act enables the State Board to withdrawconsent if the directions are not complied with:"27. REFUSAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT BY STATE BOARD.(1) A State Board shall not grant its consent undersub-section (4) of section 25 for the establishmentof any industry, operation or process, or treatmentand disposal system or extension or addition thereto,or to the bringing into use of a new or alteredoutlet unless the industry, operation or process, ortreatment and disposal system or extension oraddition thereto, or the outlet is so established asto comply with any conditions imposed by the Board toenable it to exercise its right to take samples ofthe effluent. (2) A State Board may from time to time review- (a) any condition imposed under section 25 or section26 and may serve on the person to whom a consentunder section 25 or section 26 is granted a noticemaking any reasonable variation of revoking any suchcondition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) the refusal of any consent referred to in sub-section (1) of section 25 or section 26 or the grantof such consent without any condition, any may makesuch order as it deems fit.(3) Any condition imposed under section 25 or section26 shall be subject to any variation made under sub-section (2) and shall continue in force until revokedunder that sub-section."39. The reason for which the Act was enacted is to preventand control water pollution and to maintain or restorewholesomeness of water. In fact, the statement of objects andreasons, which prompted the law makers to pass the said Act, whichwas enacted as a special law in accordance with the powers underArticles 249 and 250 of the Constitution of India, based on theresolutions passed by the majority of the Houses of theLegislatures of the States, is as follows:"The problem of pollution of rivers and streams hasassumed considerable importance and urgency in recentyears as a result of the growth of industries and theincreasing tendency to urbanization. It is,therefore, essential to ensure that the domestic andindustrial effluents are not allowed to be dischargedinto the water courses without adequate treatment assuch discharges would render the water unsuitable assource of drinking water as well as for supportingfish life and or use in irrigation. Pollution ofrivers and streams also causes increasing damage tothe country's economy."40. In the judgment referred to by the learned Senior Counselfor the petitioner rendered by the Division Bench of the OrissaHigh Court in Animal Feeds Diaries and Chemicals Limited v. OrissaState (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Board and Others, AIR1995 Orissa 84, which relates to Air (Prevention and Control ofPollution) Act, it was held that under Section 31-A of the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, the Board must besatisfied that the industry in question must emit air pollutantresulting in air pollution in the context of the definition of"air pollutant" under Section 2(a) of the Air Act, which means anysolid, liquid or gaseous substance present in the atmosphere insuch concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to humanbeings or other living creatures or plants or property orenvironment and the definition of "air pollution" under Section 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) of the Air Act means the presence in the atmosphere of any airpollutant and in that context, the Board must be satisfied aboutthe air pollutant before invoking its powers under the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.41. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon bythe learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in J.K.CottonSpinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC1170, relates to Industrial Disputes Act, wherein it was held thatwhen there is a conflict between the general and special laws, thespecial law will prevail.42. The above said two judgments are not applicable to thefacts and circumstances of the present case.43. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placedreliance on the order rendered by one of us (P.Jyothimani,J.) inHatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2009] 1 MLJ1131. That was a case under the Prevention of Food AdulterationAct read with Essential Commodities Act in respect of milkproducts, based on Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, whereinthere is no prescribed procedure to check adulteration of food andit was in that regard, this Court has held that the law is wellsettled that the statutory authority must act within the fourcorners of the statutes, based on the English judgment in Taylorv. Taylor, [1875] 1 ChD 426. While sealing the blending unitthere was no reason assigned and therefore, it was held that thesame was not a reasonable restriction as per Article 19(1)(g) ofthe Constitution of India, as follows:"63. It is well settled that a statutory authoritymust act within four corners of the statute as itwas enunciated in the English case in Tailor v.Tailor [(1875) 1 ChD 426] and the same has beenreiterated by the Apex Court with approval in DeewanSingh vs. Rajendra PD.Ardevi [(2007) 10 SCC 528] inthe following words:"40. A statutory authority, as is well known,must act within the four corners of thestatute. Any action by a statutory authoritycontrary to or inconsistent with theprovisions of the statute, thus, would bevoid. In the matter of construction of astatute, therefore, the court shall not takerecourse to a principle which would render theacts of a statutory authority void in law." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Again the same has been followed by the Apex Court inthe recent judgement in Karnataka State FinancialCorporation vs. N.Narasimahaiah [(2008) 5 SCC 176].While dealing with sections 29 and 31 of the StateFinancial Corporations Act, 1951, the Supreme Court,in that case, has reiterated the legal position asfollows:"15. A lender of money under the common lawhas the remedy to file a suit for realisationof the amount lent if the borrower does notrepay the same. The Act, however, providesfor a special remedy in favour of thefinancial corporation constituted thereunderenabling it to exercise a statutory power ofeither selling the property or take over themanagement or possession or both belonging tothe industrial concern. Section 29, therefor,confers an extraordinary power upon the"corporation". It, being "State" within themeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution ofIndia, is expected to exercise its statutorypowers reasonably and bona fide.16. Apart from the said constitutionalrestrictions, the statute does not put anyembargo upon the corporation to exercise itspower under Section 29 of the Act.Indisputably, the said provision was enactedby Parliament with a view to see that the duesof the corporation are realised expeditiously.When a statutory power is conferred, it is atrite law that the same must be exercisedwithin the four corners of the statute. Powerof a lender to realise the amount lent eitherby enforcing the charged and/or hypothecatedor encumbrance created on certain propertyand/or proceeding simultaneously and/orindependently against the surety/guarantor isa statutory right. Different statutesprovides for different remedies. We may byway of example refer to Pawan Kumar Jain vs.Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corpn. ofU.P. Ltd., where a statutory mandate has beengiven to realise the dues from sale of themortgaged properties and then to sell otherproperties of the borrower. We are, however,not concerned with such a situation." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

64. It is also relevant to point out that by theimpugned order the blending unit of the petitionerwas sealed and no reason was given, and in spite oflapse of nearly two months, nothing has been madeknown about the seized materials and the petitionerwas not allowed to enter the sealed place ofbusiness. Even though it is true that the right tocarry on business as enshrined under Article 19(1)(g)of the Constitution of India is subject to reasonablerestrictions, such restrictions can be imposed by avalidly passed order and the authority who enforcesthe same is expected to act within the four cornersof the law, in the absence of which it can be termedas arbitrary and unfair. This Court is aware of theimportance of the product about which the petitioneris concerned and if there is material to show thatthe petitioner has imported time-lapsed lactose andused the same for the purpose of producing milkproducts for human consumption, certainly, the samehas to be viewed seriously as the same would beinjurious to health. In spite of the seriousness ofthe same, it is unfortunate that the respondents havenot been vigilant and they have not taken steps inthe manner known to law. The respondents have incasual manner entered into the place of thepetitioner and seized the materials which can onlybe treated as an emotional outburst and not as perlaw."44. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India &Others, JT 1996 (7) SC 375=AIR 1996 SC 2715, the Supreme Court hasheld that the prevention of pollution and improvement ofenvironment are Constitutional mandates and that has been enlargedby the Post-Constitutional statutes like the Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Controlof Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986and that the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principleare part of the Environmental Law of the country, apart fromholding that even otherwise they are to be treated as a part ofthe customary International Law, which is to be treated as formingpart of the domestic law:"Even otherwise once these principles are acceptedas part of the Customary International Law therewould be no difficultly in accepting themas partof the domestic law. It is almost acceptedproposition oflaw that the rule of CustomaryInternational Law which are not contrary to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ municipal law shall be deemed to have beenincorporated in the domestic law and shall befollowed by the Courts of Law. To support we mayrefer to Justice H.R. Khanna's opinion in Addl.Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla(AIR 1976 SC 1207) Jolly George Varghese's case (AIR1980 SC 470) and Gramophone Company's case (AIR 1984 SC 667)."45. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4016, it wasasserted by the Supreme Court that protection of environment wouldhave precedence over economic interest."The development and the protection of environmentsare not enemies. If without degrading theenvironment or minimising adverse effects thereuponby applying stringent safeguards, it is possible tocarry on development activity applying the principlesof sustainable development, in that eventuality, thedevelopment has to go on because one cannot losesight of the need for development of industries,irrigation resources and power projects etc.including the need to improve employmentopportunities and the generation of revenue. Abalance has to be struck. We may note that to stallfast the depletion of forest, series of orders havebeen passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman's caseregulating the felling of trees in all the forests inthe country. Principle 15 of Rio Conference of 1992relating to the applicability of precautionaryprinciple which stipulates that where there arethreats of serious or irreversible damage, lack offull scientific certainty shall not be used as areason for proposing effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation is also required to be keptin view. In such matters, many a times, the optionto be adopted is not very easy or in a straightjacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, theremay be irreparable damage to the environment and ifit is stopped, there may be irreparable damage toeconomic interest. In case of doubt, however,protection of environment would have precedence overthe economic interest. Precautionary principlerequires anticipatory action to be taken to preventharm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonablesuspicion. It is not always necessary that thereshould be direct evidence of harm to theenvironment." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

46. The Division Bench of this Court in Noyyal RiverAyacutdars Protection Association and Another v. The Government ofTamil Nadu & Others, 2007 (1) LW 275, while emphasizing theimportance of safeguarding the forest wild life in the country, asenshrined under Article 48-A of the Constitution of India, andconnecting it with the fundamental duty on every citizen toprotect and improve the natural environment enunciated underArticle 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, held that the threadof right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiapasses into the above-said celebrated principle of theConstitution of India and further held that the Pollution ControlBoard should not only ensure proper environment, but it is alsoits imperative duty to improve the environment."23. Article 48-A in Part-IV (Directive Principles)of the Indian Constitution enjoins that "State shallendeavour to protect and improve the environment andto safeguard the forests and wild life of thecountry". Article 47 further imposes the duty on theState to improve public health as its primary duty.Article 51-A(g) imposes "a fundamental duty" on everycitizen of India to protect and improve the natural"environment" including forests, lakes, rivers andwild life and to have compassion for livingcreatures. The word "environment" is of broadspectrum which brings within its ambit "hygenicatmosphere and ecological balance". It is,therefore, not only the duty of the State, but alsothe duty of every citizen to maintain hygenicenvironment. The State, in particular, has duty inthat behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridledsovereign power and to forge in its policy tomaintain ecological balance and hygenic environment.Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamentalright. Enjoyment of life and its attainment,including their right to live with human dignity,encompasses within its ambit, the protection andpreservation of environment, ecological balance freefrom pollution of air and water, sanitation withoutwhich life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts oractions would cause environmental pollution.Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative onthe State authorities and bodies like the PollutionControl Board not only to ensure and safeguard properenvironment, but also an imperative duty to takeadequate measures to promote, protect and improve theenvironment, man-made and natural." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

47. The importance of such message against water and airpollution has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in itsrecent judgment in U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Dr.BhupendraKumar Modi & Anr., [2009] 2 SCC 147 = 2009 (1) CTC 84, whereinHis Lordship, P.Sathasivam,J., has made significant and thoughtprovoking remark, as follows:"20. In the case on hand which is also similar toMohan Meakins Ltd. had commenced its journey in theyear 1985, nonetheless lapse of such long periodcannot be a reason to absolve the respondents fromthe trial. In a matter of this nature,particularly, when it affects public health if it isultimately proved, courts cannot afford to deallightly with cases involving pollution of air andwater. The message must go to all concerned personswhether small or big that the courts will share theparliamentary concern and legislative intent of theAct to check the escalating pollution level andrestore the balance of our environment. Those whodischarge noxious polluting effluents into streams,rivers or any other water bodies which inflicts onthe public health at large, should be dealt withstrictly de hors to the technical objections. Sinceescalating pollution level of our environment affectson the life and health of human beings as well asanimals, the courts should not deal with theprosecution for offences under the pollution andenvironmental Acts in a causal or routine manner." 48. Under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of thisCourt, in which one of us was a party (P.Jyothimani,J.), whiledealing with tanneries in Erode District, in addition to thevarious categories of tanneries, namely:(a) Units now approached this Court stating that ROand RMS have been provided for the consented/appliedcapacity;(b) Units now making reduction of production capacityby removing process machines;(c) Units which are seeking time to install RO andRMS;(d) Units which have not applied for/applications notresubmitted;(e) Units willing to switch over for bleachingoperation; and(f) Units which claim to have provided for adifferent technology like sprinkler system, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has given various directions regarding the operation of effluenttreatment and R.O. Plants, as follows:"18. In addition to the above, we issue the followingdirections:i) Units falling under Category I (i) to (iii) shallinstall electro magnetic flow meters, operate theirEffluent Treatment and RO plants, recover water,properly manage reject and cease discharge to a waterbody/land and have their records maintained asdirected by the Board and should undertake to satisfythe Board in this regard within a period of thirtydays from today;ii) The TNPCB is directed to conduct similarenforcement action against similar clusters inNamakkal District where similar units are functioningon the other side of the Cauvery river anddischarging untreated effluents into the river,especially as it is reported that the closure inErode District tend to migrate across the river toNamakkal District. The TNPCB, Namakkal is directedto submit a status report within two months inrespect of dyeing and bleaching units in NamakkalDistrict, whose discharges reach river Cauvery andthe action contemplated in respect of these units.iii) The TNPCB is directed to augment its engineerand staff strength at the Erode office by assigningfive additional assistant engineers to the Erodeoffice within four weeks and providing additionalfacilities such as vehicles, testing equipments suchas hand held TDS meters, a dedicated telephone numberto receive complaints, a complaints handling, followup "feed back to complaint" procedure, etc. to ensureimproved regulatory action. The TNPCB shall ensurethat adequate publicity is given to its complainthandling procedure including the dedicated telephonenumber. We are informed that the Board has maderecommendation for bifurcation of the office of theDistrict Environmental Engineer at Kancheepuram,Tiruvallur and Erode by creating new posts and if theState Government approves the proposal, then it willbe possible for the Board to provide additional staffand technical staff in the Erode District. The StateGovernment is directed to take a decision in respectof the above proposal within four weeks. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv) The Board shall ensure that adequate primary andsecondary treatment (wherever required) is adopted byTie & Dye and Printing Units to preserve and protectKalingarayan Channel and Cauvery River water andaction is taken to close these units as alsobleaching units where discharge ofuntreated/unsatisfactorily treated effluent isnoticed.v) The TNPCB should cause review of chlorine use andstorage procedures in the industrial sector andensure that the best available technology is adoptedfor colour removal, and health of the communities isnot put at risk due to adoption of low cost sub-standard solutions.vi) The Public Works Department is directed to reviewall permissions granted for drawal of water fromCauvery (Kalingarayan Channel) to ensure thatagricultural water supply is not misused/diverted forindustrial purpose and to ensure that there is noeffluent discharged using these pipelines and furtherensure that there is reduction in water drawal by theindustry, given the fact that the industry will bemandated to recycle the water it now consumes,consequent upon the achievement of "Zero LiquidDischarge".vii) The Public Works Department is directed toexamine the issue of remediating the water bodies andchannels polluted by effluent flows and to recommendand adopt measures to keep these water bodies freefrom industrial pollution as well as domestic sewagefrom the settlements/local bodies who are presentlydischarging untreated/ unsatisfactorily treatedsewage.viii) The TNPCB should intensify its drive toidentify units which are producing more than what ispermitted in the order of consent, therebydischarging more than the quantitative limitsprescribed in the consent and to take action toeffect closure.ix) The District Collector is directed to set up aCommittee for co-ordinated action headed by theDistrict Collector or his representative andcomprising of the District Environmental Engineer,TNPCB, S.E., TNEB and the District Superintendent of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police or his nominee, to ensure co-ordinated andcontinued action to arrest discharge to waterbodies/land and to take stringent action againstdefaulting units, including criminal prosecutionwherever warranted."49. The Appellate Authority has, in fact, considered allthese aspects threadbare and held that, if the Pollution ControlBoard insists for zero discharge system, it has power to do so andin such circumstances, it is not for this Court to interfere sincepollution free India is the present constitutional goal, as itdeals with the right to life of its citizens.In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and the sameis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007is closed.sasiSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board NCB-1, Greenways Road Chennai-600 028.2. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board 78, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.3. The District Collector, Tirunelveli.4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation) Chennai.5. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.6. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Namakkal Division, Namakkal District.MSM(CO)SR/9.6.2009W.P.No.33882 of 2007