M/s. Park CETP (P) Limited v. The Government of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 20-04-2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMW.P.No.26374 of 2008andM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008M/s. Park CETP (P) Limited Rep. by its Managing DirectorA.R. SurendhiranNo.5/1197, Poyampalayam Privu (West) P.N. Road, Pichamapalayam Pudhur PostTiruppur – 641 603... PetitionerVersus1.The Government of IndiaRep. by its SecretaryMinistry of Environment and ForestParyavaran BhawanCGO Complex, Lodhi RaodNew Delhi – 110 0032.The Government of Tamil naduRep. by its SecretaryEnvironment and ForestFort St. GeorgeChennai – 600 0093.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardRep. by its ChairmanNo.76/100, Anna Salai, GuindyChennai – 600 0324.The District Environmental EngineerTamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardKumaran ComplexTiruppur https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Noyyal River AyacutdarsProtection Association(Reg. No.64/2003)rep. by its President A.P. KandasamyAthipalayam PostK-Paramathi – viaKarur – 639 111... Respondents(R5 – impleaded as per Court order dated 29-01-2009 in M.P.No.1 of2009 in W.P.No.26374 of 2008 by Honourable the Acting Chief Justiceand V.D.P.,J.)Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the recordsof the third respondent in his Letter No.DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006dated 14-11-2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the thirdrespondent to give consent to establish and operate ETP, R.O. plantetc. in common to the petitioner CETP and further direct the 3rdrespondent to recommend the case of the petitioner CETP for subsidyfrom the 1st and 2nd respondent as recommended for other 19CETPs. For petitioner :: Mr. G. ArunachalamFor respondents:: Mr. R. RamanlalORDER(Order of the Court was made by Prabha Sridevan,J.)Originally the petitioner Combined ETP(CoETP in short) had threeunits. Seven more units are proposed to be included as its members.It appears that they initially decide to instal R.O. Plantsindividually. Thereafter, they dropped the idea and decided to forma Common ETP(CETP in short). According to them, they have installedan ETP and the R.O. plant in common and it is ready forcommissioning. According to them, the existing three units andproposed seven units are situated 5 kms away from Noyyal River.According to the petitioner, there are 19 more CETPs in Tiruppur andthey all have given consents to instal R.O. plants and the CentralGovernments and the State Governments have given subsidy to thoseCETPs. The petitioner CoETP also decided that they would avail ofthese benefits of subsidy and according to them, the Anna Universityhad also approved of the project report on 15-07-2008. However, theimpugned order dated 14-11-2006 stands in their way of establishingthe CETP and therefore, they have filed this writ petition for acertiorari to quash the said order directing the Tamil Nadu PollutionControl Board to give consent to establish and operate the ETP R.Oplant in common to the petitioner CoETP and also for a direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recommend the case of the petitioner CoETP for subsidy from the 1stand 2nd respondent. 2.While making his submissions, the learned counsel for therespondent said that the directions for the grant of subsidy is notpressing the prayer and submitted that he will take steps to avail ofthe benefit that is granted by the Government. 3.According to the learned counsel, there are no legal hurdlesand the Pollution Control Board has rejected his application andinsists they will only give them permission to establish a combinedETP and not a common ETP and he would also submit that for the grantof subsidy they should establish a common ETP and if they establish acombined ETP they will not be entitled to the said benefit.According to the learned counsel, they have fulfilled all theconditions of the establishment of a common ETP. 4.The Pollution Control Board has filed a detailed counter.According to them, the three units viz., M/s. Anburam Knit Process,M/s. Karthikai Textile Mills and M/s. PKP Processors, which are thethree original units, were previously the members of M/sAngeripalayam CETP (P) Ltd. Subsequently they wanted to be relievedfrom the membership of the said CETP and put up an individual ETP andtherefore, the Board issued an order of closure. On 02-11-2006, theBoard issued a no objection for installation and operation of theR.O. plant to the unit of the petitioners combined ETP. 5.According to the Pollution Control Board, the petitioner'sCoETP does not fall under the common effluent treatment plantcategory and the Board relies on the order dated 22-12-2006 passed bythis Court in W.P.No.29719 of 2003 which reads as follows:"10. Subsequently, the Pollution Control Board issuedorders directing all the units in Tiruppur clusters to setup 'Reverse Osmosis Plants' (R.O. plants) so as to achieve'Zero Liquid Discharge' (ZLD). This direction wasnecessitated by the fact that conventional primary treatmentwas not adequate to inter alia remove the 'Total DissolvedSalts' (TDS) from the effluents generated from these units.It was noticed that huge inflow of upwards of 90 millionlitres a day from the dyeing and bleaching units in clusterhas resulted in the siltation of the Orathapalayam Damconstructed across the Noyyal river, generating enormouspollution load on the receiving water body and consequentlythe river water used for irrigation of down streamagricultural lands as also ground water drawn from wellsalongside the Noyyal river has been rendered saline.Consequently eight CETPs were initially set up whichreceived effluents from 271 units, subjected these effluentsto primary treatment and later released them to the river https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Noyyal or which ultimately reached the river Noyyal.Thereafter a proposal was mooted to establish additional 11CETPs and many units filed affidavits before this Courtstating that they intend to join one or the other of theeleven additional proposed CETPs. These eleven CETPs wereto cater to 236 units. The remaining 173 units filedaffidavits before this Court or communicated to thePollution Control Board that they intend to set up R.O.Plants individually. Of these individual units (hereinafterreferred to as IETPs), 6 units have filed affidavits beforethis Court seeking permission to abandon their plans ofsetting up of individual R.O. Plants and to join theproposed CETPs. This Court permitted these units to do so,subject to the condition that the CETPs would not take inany further members. It appears that written undertakingswere given by the Tirupur Dyeing Factories Owners'Association as well as the Tiruppur BleachingUnits/Industries Owners' Association to the PollutionControl Board to comply with the conditions on or before 08-06-2005."Therefore, the Board does not accept that the petitioner unit isamong the eight existing CETPs or 11 proposed CETPs as allowed bythis Court. 6.The learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board wouldsubmit that they fall under the individual ETP status which havedecided to provide a combined ETP. The learned counsel alsosubmitted that the petitioner also had decided to add 7 proposedunits to the number of units that was originally existing. He alsosubmitted that the petitioner's unit had been considered along withthe others in W.P.No.29791 of 2003 and the petitioner unit wascategorized as 'F' which falls under units which had obtained timetill 30-11-2006 to continue discharge to CETPs. According to thelearned counsel, this unit has been established only as a combinedETP and not as a common ETP. 7.Paragraph No.5 of the counter is also relevant and it readsas follows:"5.It is respectfully submitted that the petitionerunit of M/s.PARK CETP (P) Limited has applied for theconsent of the Board on 14-08-2008 and the DistrictEnvironmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board,Tiruppur in letter No.DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006 dated 14-11-2006 has returned the applications to the unit ofM/s.PARK CETP (P) Limited with a request to submit the freshapplications without any proposed members. As of now theunit of M/s. PARK CETP(P) Limited has not filed applicationsas requested in letter No.DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006 dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14-11-2006, which is mandatory to obtain Consent ToEstablish under the Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution)Act, 1974 as amended and under the Air (Preventionand Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 as amended. Further showcause notice was issued to the unit of M/s. PARK CETP (P)Limited, as the unit is carrying out construction activityat S.F.No.327, Thottipalayam village, Tirupur Taluk,Coimbatore District."8.The learned counsel appearing for the Noyyal RiverAyacutdars Protection Association also had objection but we do no seehow he could have any objection to our considering the writ petitionprayer especially when the Pollution Control Board has only directedthe petitioner unit to apply again and the counter also says thatunless consent under Water Act and Air Act are obtained, there is noquestion of the Board processing the application. Therefore, theirapprehension or objection is premature. In fact, we are of theopinion that the writ petition itself is premature. The order whichis impugned herein reads as follows:"TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDFrom ToA. Thangapandian M.E. The Managing DirectorDistrict Environmental Engineer,i/e M/s. Park Combined ETP(P) Ltd.,Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board SF.No.327, PoyampalayamII Floor, Kumaran Commercial Pirivu(West)Complex, Kumaran Road Pitchampalayam Post, PN Road Tiruppur – 641 601 Tiruppur – 641 603_______________________________________________________________Letter No:DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006/Dated 14.11.2006Sir,Sub: TNPC Board – Industries – M/s. PARK Combined ETP (P) Ltd., as SF.No.327 – Application for Consent of the Board submitted by you is returned – reg.Ref: Unit's application for Consent under the Water and Air Act received on 14.08.2006**********This is to inform that the Honourable High Court of Madras inNoyyal Batch Matter in W.P.No.29791/2003 etc., has ordered to installRO Plant with Reject Management System so as to ensure Zero dischargesystem of effluent in which 3 units namely 1.M/s. Anburam KnitProcess (Collector's Booklet No.495), 2. M/s. P.K.P. Processors(Collector's Booklet No.181) and M/s. Karthikai Textile Mills(Collector's Booklet No.480) are respondents. These 3 units haveproposed to provide a combined ETP to treat the Dyeing effluentarising from 3 units in the name of M/s. PARK Combined ETP (P) Ltd., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at SR.No.327, Thottipalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict.However, the application forms submitted by you was not dulyfilled in. Also, it is to inform that there shall not be anyaddition of existing or proposed units in the combined ETP and thereshall not be any deviation from the directions of the Honourable HighCourt of Madras. Hence, the applications filed by the unit are returned andrequested to file a fresh applications under both Acts in the name ofM/s.PARK Combined ETP without any new members with other details.The receipt of this letter along with the applications assubmitted by you shall be acknowledged.Sd/-DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDTIRUPPUREncl.Application-2 setsReceived by sd/-"9.Till date no application has been filed by the petitioner-unit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Boardis insistent on treating them only as combined ETP and not as acommon ETP without any reasonable basis. There is no such averment inthe petition. It is only a statement made across the Bar. Thelearned counsel would submit that a mere perusal of the impugnedorder itself would show that the Board itself would treat thepetitioner as a combined ETP. If the petitioner is entitled to applyeither as a combined or a common ETP, it is open to him to make arepresentation as in the order dated 14-11-2006. As and when thepetitioner files an application, it is for the Pollution ControlBoard to satisfy itself whether all the statutory requirements andall the provisions of various Environmental Laws are complied withand therafter pass an order.10.The writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be noorder as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarglp https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary The Government of IndiaMinistry of Environment and ForestParyavaran BhawanCGO Complex, Lodhi RaodNew Delhi – 110 0032. The Secretary.The Government of Tamil naduEnvironment and ForestFort St. GeorgeChennai – 600 0093.The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardRep. by its ChairmanNo.76/100, Anna Salai, GuindyChennai – 600 0324.The District Environmental EngineerTamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardKumaran ComplexTiruppur.1 CC To Mr.R. Ramanlal, Advocate, SR NO.163781 CC To Mr.K.M.Santhanagopalan, Advocate, SR NO.159621 CC To Mr.G. Arunachalam, Advocate, SR NO.15829W.P.No.26374 of 2008andM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008sai(co)pmk/24.4.2009