BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE CHENNAI Application No. 225 of 2014(SZ)
Sri. C. Murugan, Proprietor M/s. Manjunath Dying Works No. 7, 26th Cross Anekallappa Mutt Lane Cubbonpet Bangalore 560 002
......Applicant Vs
1. The Member Secretary Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Parisara Bhavan, 1st to 5th Floor 49 Church Street Bangaglore 560 010 2. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Regional Office Bangalore City West “Nisarga Bhavan”, 1st Floor Thimmaiah Road, 7th ‘D’Cross Shivanagar, Opp. Pushpanjali Theatre Bangalore 560 010 3. The Executive Engineer- West Division BESCOM Nrupathunga Road Near Janardhan Hotel Bangalore 560 001
.......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant 1. M/s. V. Suthakar 2. Mr. K.S. Viswanathan Conusel for the Respondents 1. M/s. R. Thirunavukarasu Mrs. Swarnalatha - R1 and R2 2. Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 20 of 2015(SZ)
M/s. Sri Guru Krupa Dyeing Unit Represented by Sri. N. Raja Gopal S/o. D.Narayan 1
No. 3, Ganigara ‘B’Lane, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002
.....Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Banglore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Chairman B. W.S.S.B, 5th Floor, Kaveri Bhavan K.G Road, Bangalore.
4. The Joint Commissioner- West BBMP Sampige Road, Sheshadripuram, Opp to Mantri Mall, Bangalore. 5. The Executive Engineer, West Division BESCOM Nrupathunga Road, Near Janardhan Hotel, Bangalore – 560 001.
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
2
Application No. 21 of 2015 (SZ) M/s. Venkateshwara Dyeing Works, Represented by R. Venkatesh, No.7, Ganigara Lane, Maldharpet, Bangalore – 560 002.
....Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030
.......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No.22 of 2015
M/s. Ramachandra Dyeing, Represented by R. Gopal Rao, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
.......Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, 3
Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 23 of 2015 M/s. Manickam Dyeing Works, Represented by K. Manickam, No. 8, Chowlugalli, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
.......Applicant
Vs 1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 4
Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 24 of 2015 M/s. Mani Dyeing Works, Represented by K.R. Mani, No. 61, Nagarthpet, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002
.......Applicant
Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 5
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha for R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 25 of 2015 M/s. Pawar Dyeing Unit, Represented by P.P. Ganapathi SA No. 43, Sunkalpet Main Road, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
......Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu 6
Mrs. M. Swarnalatha for R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 26 of 2015 M/s. Shyam Dyeing Works, Represented by Shyam Sundar C.M No. 17, Ganigara ‘A’ Lane, Maldharpet, Bangalore- 56002
......Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
......Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 27 of 2015 M/s. Om Sakthi dyeing Works, 7
Represented by Lakshmi Narayana M. 2nd Cross Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
......Applicant
Vs 1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 28 of 2015 M/s. Sobha Dyeing, Represented by Chandramma, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
.......Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, 8
Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Application No. 29 of 2015 M/s. Raju Dyeing Unit, Represented by Shyam sundar, Cubbonpet, Bangalore- 560 002.
.......Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 9
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant M/s. S. Kolandasamy Mr. C.S. Saravanan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devaraj Ashok- R3
Appeal No. 02 of 2015
M/s. Padmanabha Dyeing Unit Represented by its Partner and Occupier, Mr. T.G. Ravikiran, No.12, 2nd Cross, Vinobhonagar, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore.
....Appellant/Applicant Vs
1. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore – 560 010. 2. The Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Bangalore City West, Nisaraga Bhavana, 1st Floor, 7th ‘D’Main, Thimmaiah Road, Saneguruvanahalli, Shivanagar, Bangalore- 560 010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, S 2 Sub Division, BESCOM No. 11/3, Near MICO, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560 030.
.....Respondents 10
Counsel for the Applicants M/s. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban Raja Raja Chozhan Counsel for the Respondents M/s. R. Thirunavukkarasu Mrs. M. Swarnalatha- R1 and R2 Mr. Devraj Ashok - R3 QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran (Expert Member)
JUDGEMENT
Delivered by Hon’ble Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member) dated 15th May 2015
1. Whether the judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet yes/no 2. Whether the judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter yes/no
1. The issue arising in all these applications and appeal relate to the silk yarn dyeing industries run in large number in the congested area in Cubbonpet, at Bangalore. There appears to be some 25 such units in the said area, carrying on the dyeing process including bleaching, weaving, right from soaking the yarn and ultimately supplying to the wholesalers. The units are stated to be runnig on small scale basis by the families in the said area called as ‘Silk Hub’ with three to ten employees. 2. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, having found that these units engaging in fabric dyeing and washing activity are discharging untreated dyeing effluents to the BWSSB sewer line without valid consent of the Board and based on the complaints received from the residents regarding water and air pollution from the units, issued closure orders against which appeals were filed and the Karnataka State Appellate Authority, Bangalore, after granting orders of stay has ultimately set aside the closure orders on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, and remanded the matter back to the Board to hear the parties and pass 11
appropriate orders. It was thereafter, the Board after giving personal hearings and finding that these units are operating without valid consent from the Board in the residential area discharging trade effluents to the open and without treatment and without trade licence which have expired and after giving subsequent notices and hearings, has passed orders of closure under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution ) Act,1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act 1981 against which the present applications and appeal are filed. 3. The case of the applicants and the appellant is that the closure orders have been passed without application of mind, that when the earlier order of closure was passed, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and during the pendency of those appeals the impugned orders came to be passed and hence they are hit by the principles of lis Pendens that the impugned orders have not considered anything contained in the replies, that the analysis reports based on which the closure orders were passed have not been communicated to the applicants and the appellant and that the orders have been passed on the erroneous assumption that the units are situated in the residential area. 4. The above averments have been repudiated by the respondents stating that the units are using about 200 litres of water per day for removing the gum from the raw yarn and the waste water is directly let into drain and thereafter the dyeing activity starts during which, water is heated in a stainless steel tank using LP gas and thereafter colour dye is added to the hot water as per the requirement of the customers, the yarn is soaked in the dye bath for a pre determined duration and afterwards the dyed yarn is dried and in that process the unit generates about 400 to 500 litres of wastewater which is again discharged into the BWSSB drain without any treatment, that the chimneys provided in these units are not adequate and there are no porthole and platform provided to the chimney to monitor the air emission, that it was observed on inspection that these units are established without consent from the Board under the Water and Air Acts, that the units are found to exist in the residential area, that during the personal hearing the units were informed that they make necessary arrangements to dispose effluents after treatment in a CETP or they should shift from the place, that even in the earlier round of litigation the Appellate Authority has in fact directed closure on the ground that the trade licence has expired, that samples collected on 28-06-2013 and subsequently analysed show that the parameters in respect of various environmental reqirements are above standard, that the Hon’ble Principal Bench of the 12
NGT has held in Application No . 37/2013 that the Pollution Control Boards should not allow any industries to carry on their activities without valid consent and that proper personal hearing was given to all the units before passing the impugned orders. 5. Before going into the merits of the cases it is relevant to point out that in Application No. 225/2014 this Tribunal has granted an order of interim stay of closure order on 27-08-2014 by virtue of which it appears that the said unit is carrying on its activities as on date. However, there is no such order in respect of the other units and we are informed that the other units have stopped their activities consequent to the impugned orders of closure. Subsequently, by an order dated 05-02-2015, this Tribunal has constituted a committee which consisted of an Advocate and an Associate Professor of the Department of Environmental Science, St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore, to visit the spot to find out the status of the units in respect of the scale of operation, sources of effluent generation, storage and disposal methods, feasibility of conveying the effluent to the treatment plant through the BWSSB sewerage system, alternate remedy for safe disposal of effluent and other environmental aspects and to file a report. 6. Accordingly, a detailed report has been submitted by the Court Commissioners on 22-042015. No one of the parties have filed any objection to the report. On the other hand, all of them are unanimous that the report which was admittedly prepared after inspection in the presence of the parties is fair. After giving a general finding that the area namely, Cubbonpet is a ‘silk hub’ in Bangalore and the area consisted of congested streets and lanes with wall to wall construction of houses with a fully closed and compact underground sewerage/drainage system that the units are carrying on activities right from spinning the yarn, bleaching and dying, weaving and supplying to the wholesalers in small and invariably run by families, the report has observed as follows;
1) ‘All the units are small scale: 2) All the 12 units are run in parts of the residential houses and do not have any sign boards or industry like structures. As we enter the house, in a portion of the same, mostly in ground floor, these units are run. The steel baths are imbedded in masonary construction of hearth where firewood is used or steel baths are kept on a platform where steam boilers are used. In 13
some units steam boilers are placed at a safer distance outside the processing site but within their premises and in some units boilers are kept next to the processing area. 3) The nature of activities in the 12 units is that they have job work of: a) Bleaching the silk yarn by dipping them in soda ash mix in hot water at about 60 degree C and the yarn is kept soaked in this water for about 2 to 3 hours and thereafter, taken out and washed in ordinary water in room temperature and thereafter, dried and sent back to the suppliers for further processing: b) Bleaching and dying are done simultaneously by adopting the same
method of soaking the silk yarn in the water containing the
bleaching and dying agent and after keeping the same for 2 to3 hours, the yarn is taken out and washed in water at room temperature ,dried and sent back to the suppliers: c) Some of the units are involved in bleaching of woven silk fabric instead of silk yarn but however, following the same method; 4) Their scale of operation is between 15 kg and 50 kg of yarn per day. 50kg seems to be the maximum capacity which can be dyed or bleached, if the unit works full house to full capacity. 5) All these units generally use water from their own bore wells and the total water requirement is between 300 and 4000 litres depending on the load. Of the total water use, about 10% is mixed with bleaching or dyeing agent and the quantity of water used is generally to the level required to soak the 10 or 15 kg of yarn as required. Of which, it seems about 50-60% will get soaked into the yarn and the rest will be the effluents generated. As per the applicants, the effluents will not be discharged out immediately of the Dye Bath (tub) because the spent water is reusable as long as the shade of the colour is the same. As per their practice, normally if they take up, for instance `green ‘ shades, they will go for all shades in green by mixing green colour or dyes in various proportions, but they will only add further
14
necessary quantities of water and dyeing agent. But, they need not take out the residual water which is the effluent. Until the necessity arises for them for change of colours, there will be no effluents. Only at the time of changing of colour, they take out the residual water which is the final effluent containing the mixture of dyes and other additives. They have their own Research and Development as they have been doing this trade for a long period of time say between 15 and 35 years. 6) This apart, after taking out the soaked yarn after two or three hours from the dyeing or bleaching tub, they wash it in water in room temperature and according to the petitioners, it is only the silk yarn dust or other impurities alone get cleaned in the water. 7) All the applicants are letting in these two types of effluents into the sewerage through the hole fitted with a small metal screen which is located close to gutter. One of the applicants, i.e, Padmanabha Dyeing, which is a bleaching unit alone, collects the effluents in an underground sump and treats the same with Alum and thereafter, lets the effluent into the sewerage. Another four of the applicant units bleach the effluents with hydrosulfite and thereafter, they let it in to the sewerage. The rest of the applicants let the effluents directly into the sewerage. 8) In all the units, three types of technology is used: a) Provision is made for heating the dyeing/bleaching-bath directly by use of firewood. Wherever firewood is used, a chimney pipe of around 15 to 20 meters height have been installed for letting out the smoke; b) In some of the units, instead of firewood, gas cylinders have been installed for heating the water. c) There is a separate boiler in which, the water is heated by using firewood and the steam is let into the dyeing or bleaching bath. 9) All the units except M/S Manjunatha Dyeing Works were not functioning at the time of inspection.
15
10) The containers and the boxes containing the dyes and chemicals used are ascertained from the applicants and inspected. Normally, all the applicants use Azo-free dyes for dyeing and Tata Soda Ash for bleaching. It is represented that these dyes which are used for dyeing the silk are natural dyes in a majority of cases and are very safe dyes. 11) We found in all the units, labourers and members of the family of the units in a hale and healthy condition and they do not suffer from any kind of occupational and other diseases due to the use of these chemicals in spite of being residing in the same place for generations together and decades together (or) psychologically acclimatized to the work site environment.’ 7. The Court Commissioners in their report have also stated ‘ it seems that the vital parameters such as pH, BOD, and heavy metals find place in the effluent well above the permissible limit and therefore it may not be advisable for the effluent to be directly discharged into the sewerage whatsoever the miniscule or negligible quantity may be. The BOD value in all samples was found to be several fold higher than that of the permissible limit of 30mg/L and such a heavy load of BOD will definitely affect the efficiency of STP downstream. The effluents with high alkalinity originating from bleaching units will upset the biological treatment of STP as it is detrimental to microbial population.’ After individual findings and observations in respect of each unit, the Commissioners have given their suggestions in two heads namely, TEMPORARY and PERMANENT. 8. The suggestions of the Court Commissioners under temporary head are: 1) On-site storage facility; All units are stated to have enough space to have storage tanks of about 1000 litres capacity or more in which effluents can be collected and stored and then transported through vehicles like container lorries with suction facilities and taken away to any one of the Common Effluent Treatment Plants. As these units are located in narrow lanes, the effluents thus stored can be sucked in the tanker at proximity on the arterial road. A decision is to be taken as to whether the used water for washing should also be collected in the storage tank.
16
2) Set-out and Set-back Service; The crew of the tanker after emptying the contents shall replace the storage tankers in their original place on weekly basis and to avoid spillage of effluents on the passage wheel barrow or trolleys can be used and such operations may be avoided during peak hours. 3) Assistance from BWSSB: The BWSSB may be approached for assistance to avail tanker facility temporarily till the occupiers have their own. The report also suggests to examine the feasibility of treatment unit recommended by R&D of Central Silk Board with a periodic maintenance and standard as prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board. That apart, the report also suggests that the State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited may also be approached for financial assistance. 9. The suggestion under permanent measure are; 1) Relocation: As there is no possibility of a CETP for these units since there are no adequate vacant site nearby area, the long term solution should be to relocate these units out of the city with adequate treatment facility with water, transport and other facilities and such relocation can be in a time bound manner say in 2 to 3 years. 2) Effluent Collection Line: Alternatively as a long term measure, it is suggested that the Government can provide a separate effluent collection line for the entire area of Cubbonpet to facilitate single point collection of effluent so that the small industries can exist in the same place. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the respondents would submit that the Court Commissioners report is an exact picture of the real fact and that any order passed in line of the report is acceptable. We have considered the entire pleadings, documents and the report of the Commissioners in their proper perspectives and given our anxious thoughts to the issues involved in this case. 11. The issues involved in these cases can be usefully framed as follows: 1) Whether the applicant units are run authorisedly following the pollution norms?
17
2) Whether the impugned orders of the State Pollution Control Board in directing closure of the units are valid in law? 3) To what relief the applicants/appellant are entitled to? 4) What other orders to be passed in the interest of maintaining proper environment in the Area? 12. The first and second issues can be taken together to precisely decide the questions involved in this case. Admittedly, the applicants units numbering 12, apart from some other units in Cubbonpet, Bengaluru, called ‘silk hub’are traditionally run for the past nearly 20 years as small scale family units carrying on the business in manufacturing and trading silk saries, dhoties etc. Their activities include spinning, bleaching and dyeing yarn and supplying to the traders as found in the commissioner’s report. Each of the units approximately generates about 400 to 500 litres of wastewater which is discharged into BWSSB drain every day, some partially treating and other without any treatment as also found in the report of the Court Commissioners. It is the case of the State Pollution Control Board that these units provide chimneys to the boiler which are not adequate and there are no porthole and platform to monitor air emission. The samples collected were analysed by the Central Environmental Agency and found that all parameters are above the prescribed standard. Further the units have been run without valid prior consent from the Pollution Control Board. 13. Section 25 of the Water (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act 1974 states in no uncertain terms that no person shall without previous consent of the State Board, establish any industry or any system which is likely to discharge effluent or sewage into stream etc, with only concession to the existing industries as on date of operation of the said Act to continue for a period of three months within which period consent should be obtained from the Board. Similar is the provision of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention &Control of Pollution) Act 1981. In the light of the specific provisions of law and on the undisputed facts mentioned above and found by the Commissioners, we have no hesitation to hold that all these units are unauthorised and the impugned orders cannot be found fault with. The complaints made by these parties in so far as it relates to the fact that they were not heard has no legs to stand, as we are fully satisfied that sufficient opportunity has been given to all. Further, we are informed that all the units have been closed except M/S Manjunath Dyeing Work, applicant in Application No. 225/2014 which has the benefit of the order of stay. Issue number 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 18
14. In respect of the third issue, while it is not in dispute that these units are running without consent and they have also not taken any steps even to apply for consent, as per the established judicial precedents, they are not entitled to run the units. We take note of the fact that all the units except the above said M/S Manjunath are closed as on date .We direct that the closure of all these units shall continue till the Pollution control Board passes order subject to the conditions stipulated below. Applying the principles of sustainable development to the facts of the present case and taking note of the fact that these are small and tiny units in existence for quite a long number of years and there are no much pollution issues as stated by the Court Commissioners, we direct all the applicants to apply to the State Pollution Control Board with all necessary particulars and fees within one week from the date of receipt of this order along with a copy of this order. On receipt of such applications and subject to the satisfaction that each of the units has taken all necessary steps mentioned in the operative portion of this order regarding the short term measures, the Board shall pass orders of granting consent initially for one year which may be extended for another year, and such order shall be passed within one week after receipt of such applications. We also make it clear that after such orders are passed by the Board and in accordance with such order it will be open to the units to function. Those units which have either not applied for consent to the Board or those who have not complied with the short term measures, shall not be entitled to open their units. In so far as it relates to the applicant in Application No.225/2014 even though, they are also bound to follow the procedure as it has to be done by all other units relating to applying to the Board, as the said unit has been running throughout by virtue of the benefits of the interim orders both the Learned Appellate Authority and even before this Tribunal the said unit shall not be closed. However, in the event of the said unit not applying to the Board within the stipulated time and/or if the unit fails to comply with the fulfilment of the short term measures, the Board shall direct the said unit to shut down its activities. Issue number 3 is ordered accordingly. 15. Regarding the last issue relating to any other relief, we accept the report of the Court Commissioners, while placing on record our deep sense of appreciation to the excellent work done by them. Based on the report and on our appreciation of the same, we propose to pass our direction in the end of the order, both relating to short term and long term measures. But before that when we ponder over the facts of this case in detail, one indisputable fact that emerges is
19
that these units which are functioning since many years require prior consent from the Board. But unfortunately no one of the units has taken steps to even apply for consent or renewal. This callous attitude of the units is not only illegal but deserves to be dealt with strictly. Again considering the small nature of these units but at the same time to inculcate the concept that these units must also learn to obey the law, and as agreed upon by the counsel , we direct each of the units before us to pay an amount of Rs. 15000, under the principles of ‘Polluter Pays’, within two weeks from today to the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Bangaluru, who shall keep the amount in a separate account to be utilized for establishing a Common Effluent Treatment Plant for the silk units as a long term measure. The Board shall consider the applications only after receipt of acknowledgement of such receipts from each of the units. 16. With the result, we dispose of all the applications with the following directions: 1) The impugned orders of closure passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board are held to be valid., 2) No unit shall dispose of the trade effluent with or without treatment into the public sewer network of the BWSSB., 3) a) As a short term measure, each of the units shall install an effluent collection tank of suitable volume and material within their premises, in consultation with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board ., b) The units shall make arrangement with the Bangalore City Corporation/ any private agency to collect the effluents stored in their respective units into a common tanker and arrange to transport the same to the nearest Common Effluent Treatment Plant treating similar industrial effluents. The officials of the KSPCB, concerned with the area in question shall facilitate the process of such identification of the carrier agency as well as the CETP. c) The units that are using coal or firewood shall replace the fuel with liquid petroleum gas (LPG) to minimise the air emission and pending such replacement, the units shall ensure efficient and adequate chimney system and the KSPCB shall monitor the above aspect.,
20
4) a) As a long term measure, steps shall be initiated by the units along with all governmental authorities including the Board, to permanently relocate the units to a suitable site away from the present place with all infrastructural facilities and pollution control measures for the sustainable development of the economically important industry. To successfully implement this, the Government constituted Nodal Agency , consisting of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited and The Chief Executive Officer& Executive Member, KIADB may be approached who may extend all necessary assistance in this regard., b) The above long term measures shall be implemented expeditiously in any event within two years. We hope that all authorities concerned will extend their cooperation so that the problems faced by all the units in the area can be solved., 5) Each of the units before this Tribunal shall deposit an amount of Rs. 15000 under Polluter Pays Principle within two weeks from today with the Secretary, Government of Karnataka. Ministry of Environment &Forest who shall keep the said amounts in a separate account to be used for setting up of the CETP as stated above., 6) All the units except the applicant in Application No.225/2014 shall be closed till the State Pollution Control Board grants consent., 7) Each of the units shall be entitled to file necessary applications to the State Pollution Control Board for consent with all necessary documents and prescribed fees within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order enclosing the copy of the receipt in regard to the payment of Rs 15000 made under ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle which shall be considered by the Board in accordance with law and after satisfying that each of the unit has taken steps to satisfy the short term measures and produced proof for complying with the payment under Polluter Pays, pass orders granting consent for one year which may be extended by one more year depending upon the exigency. The above order shall be passed within one week after receipt of such applications. It is made clear that the units which have not applied for consent within the time or the units which have not made arrangements for short
21
term measure and units not complied with the payment under Polluter Pays shall continue to be shut. 17. With the above directions, all the applications stand closed. No cost.
Chennai
Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani (JM)
Dated 15-05-2015
Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran (EM)
22
