BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                     (PRINCIPAL BENCH), NEW DELHI

                           APPEAL No. 65/2012
                        Wednesday, 6th February, 2013


Quorum:

  1. Hon'ble Shri Justice V.R. Kingaonkar
     (Judicial Member)

  2. Hon'ble Shri P.S. Rao
     (Expert Member)

  3. Hon'ble Shri Dr. P.C. Mishra
     (Expert Member)

  4. Hon'ble Shri Ranjan Chatterjee
     (Expert Member)

  5. Hon'ble Shri Bikram Singh Sajwan
     (Expert Member)




      B E T W E E N:


     M/s. Gujarat Eco Textile Park Limited,
     Village Baleshwar-Palsana NH-8,
     Besides Decent Hotel, Ta: Palsana,
     District: Surat, Gujarat.                    ...     Appellant/ Petitioner

                                      AND


  1. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
     Through its Secretary,
     Paryavaran Bhavan,
     CGO Complex, New Delhi.

  2. The Expert Appraisal Committee
     Building Construction,
     Coastal Regulation Zone,
     Miscellaneous Project
     Infrastructure Development and Amendments,
     Lodhi Road, New Delhi.                             ...   Respondents

(Advocate appeared: Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for appellant and none appeared for the Respondents) (ORAL JUDGEMENT) This appeal arises out of decision rendered in the 115th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC, for short) on 16th / 17th August, 2012 and subsequent follow up action. By the impugned decision, the Appellant was denied permission to accept membership of the industrial units which are operating outside the Gujarat Eco Textile Park for treatment of the effluents generated from their units.

2. M/s. Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. (the Appellant) obtained necessary consent to establish and the required permission to operate Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP, for short). Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB for short) also granted permission to amend consent to establish on 21st April, 2009. It is not necessary to elaborately state all the relevant facts in as much as the Respondents have not filed their counter. Nor they have appeared in the matter. The averments in the Appeal Memo are not traversed by the Respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellant has capacity to deal with the treatment of effluents upto 100 MLD. There is also no dispute about the fact that the capacity is not being fully utilized by the Appellant. The units which are located within the Gujarat Eco Textile Park of the Appellant are the members thereof. Considered together, even if the effluents of such 2 members are allowed to be treated in the CETP, the capacity of the plant will be utilized only upto 35 MLD. Thus, the Appellant has additional capacity of the treatment of balance 65 MLD in the plant. The Appellant, therefore, sought to accept membership of the other units located outside the Gujarat Eco Textile Park. It appears that such other units consented to become members of the Appellant's plant for the purpose of treatment of the effluents released from such units. Those units are mostly of dyeing and printing of clothes. It appears that the Appellant, therefore, requested to allow the units located outside the park to become members of the CETP for the purpose of treatment of effluents, discharged by them for common treatment.

3. Perusal of the impugned decision made in the minutes of 115th meeting of the EAC would show that the EAC declined to accept the proposal only on the ground that the industrial units located outside the park are already members of the other CETP, which was under construction and therefore the amendment sought by the Appellant could not be accepted. The only reason assigned by the Committee (EAC) is as follows:-

" The Committee noted since the industrial units located outside the Park are already members of the other CETP under construction decided to change its earlier recommendation and in view of the above and opinion of the GPCB, the committee recommended not 3 to amend the EC of CETP to take effluent outside the Industrial Park."

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that previously the amendment sought by the Appellant was recommended by the EAC in its 98th meeting dated 3rd and 4th March, 2011. It appears that EAC came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment would not result in any increase in discharge of quantity of effluents and therefore shall not result in additional environmental burden, rather it would result in environmental amelioration as the amendment shall ensure discharge of only treated effluents in Khadi (creek/channel) and therefore it leads in improvement in quality of Khadi water. The learned counsel further points out that there is no rationale in denial of the amendment sought by the appellant in as much as the refusal is on the ground which is unconnected with any environment issue. It appears that those industrial units located outside the park, have now filed affidavits in order to show that EC is not required for their units. The record further shows that the appellant agreed to the condition that it will not undertake any additional burden in excess of the capacity i.e. 100 MLD. The Counsel would submit that if any additional burden is accepted by the appellant, the respondents may take appropriate action in view of the legal provisions made under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is: Whether the impugned decision is legal and proper?

6. We have gone through the record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of Learned Counsel for the appellant. As stated before, there is no denial of the averments made in the appeal memo. The respondents have not placed on record any tangible material to show that the refusal to amend the EC is justified because of any adverse environmental impact. On the contrary, the EAC itself had recommended the amendment on earlier occasion because the amendment sought by the appellant could have positive environmental impact. For that matter, the effluents of the units located outside the park, would get appropriate treatment in the park of the Appellant. There was therefore, no plausible reason for deviation after reaching such a conclusion. The subsequent decision of the EAC was totally without consideration of the Environmental benefits. The fact that the units located outside the park were attached to some other CETP, could not be the consideration for denial of the amendment to the EC. The appraisal by the EAC is therefore on faulty grounds. As a matter of fact, the EAC reviewed its own previous decision vide the impugned decision. We are of the opinion that the impugned decision is arbitrary and without any substantial reason as such. In any case, the denial of the amendment is not on the ground of any adverse impact on the environment. Considering the reasons discussed herein above, we are of the opinion that the impugned decision will have to be set aside. 5

7. It is worthy to note that subsequently the proponent of the CETP, located outside the Park and who initially objected, the grant of EC to the appellant's CETP, withdrew his objection. The new members having units located outside the park of the Appellant have filed their affidavits to show that their units need not have ECs due to the small scale activities like dyeing and printing of clothes taken up by them. In fact, the treatment of the effluents released from such plants would be beneficial to the environment.

8. The net result of the foregoing conclusion is that the impugned decision is unsustainable in the eye of law and will have to be quashed. Hence the impugned decision is quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the amendment to the EC as sought by the appellant. The respondents may put required conditions while granting amended E.C. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

............................................., JM (V. R. Kingaonkar) ............................................., EM (P.S. Rao) ............................................., EM (Dr. P.C. Mishra) ............................................, EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) ............................................, EM (Bikram Singh Sajwan) 6