IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1019 of 2019
M/s Roop Polymers Limited                                       ...Petitioner

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                              ...Respondents

Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-
respondent no. 1.
Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel holding brief of Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Pollution
Control Board.

Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

By order in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2017 dated 17.08.2018 a Division Bench of this Court had directed the Central Pollution Control Board to inspect each and every industry in the State of Uttarakhand to ascertain whether or not the norms laid down under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and more specifically the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (Schedule I to VII) were being complied with. A report was directed to be submitted within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

2. In its order dated 27.10.2018, the Division Bench noted the request of the Central Pollution Control Board that they had carried out inspection of 92 industries; and they be granted three months' time to carry out inspection of 812 industries put in the red category. The Division Bench also noted the request of the Central Pollution Control Board for a direction to the State Government to provide necessary funds to carry out this gigantic task. The Division Bench directed the Central Pollution Control Board to approach the State Government for release of necessary funds, and directed the State 2 Government to do the needful enabling the Central Pollution Control Board to undertake the job.

3. Subsequently, by its order dated 14.02.2019, a Division Bench of this Court noted the submission of Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board, that, in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 17.08.2018 and 27.10.2018, the Central Pollution Control Board had inspected 793 industries in the State under the red category (highly pollutant industries); their inspection revealed that 239 of such industries were complying with the prescribed norms; and 323 industries in the red category were not complying with the prescribed norms. The Division Bench also took note of the submission of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, that, during the year 2018-19, closure notices were issued to 214 units, and show-cause notices were issued to 1812 units; and the State Pollution Control Board was taking prompt action. The Division Bench, thereafter, directed the Central Pollution Control Board to furnish the list of these 323 red category industries, which were found not to be complying with the prescribed norms, to the Member Secretary of the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board within one week from the date of the order; and the Member Secretary was directed, in turn, to cause an inspection of each one of these 323 red category industries, record details of non-compliance, if any, take action against the erring industries, and submit an action taken report to this Court.

4. When the matter was listed before us on 26.03.2019, we had taken note of the submission of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, that, pursuant to the order passed by us on 14.02.2019, the State Pollution Control Board had inspected 130 red category industries, and nearly one-fifth of them were found to have flouted the prescribed standards; notices had been issued to them to show cause why action should not be taken 3 against them; and the exercise of inspecting the remaining 193 red category industries would be completed shortly.

5. In our order dated 04.04.2019, we had noted the submission of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, that 49 of the 139 red category industries, inspected by the Central Pollution Control Board, were found to have violated the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the norms prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board; while 37 of them suffered from deficiencies which were capable of rectification, violations by the other 12 industries were incapable of rectification; show-cause notices were in the process of being issued to the 37 red category industries which could rectify the deficiencies; and action was being taken for closure of the 12 industries which had violated the norms, and were incapable of rectification. We had directed the State Pollution Control Board to submit an action taken report to this Court.

6. In compliance with the submission made to this Court, the State Pollution Control Board appears to have issued closure notices to 17 red category industries which, according to them, suffered from deficiencies which were incapable of rectification, and which were generating pollutants far in excess of the prescribed norms and standards. The petitioner, one such unit, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining, among others, of violation of the procedural requirements of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Rules made thereunder.

7. The submission of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that no action could have been taken against the recalcitrant units without putting them on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

8. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, would draw our attention to Rule 34(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975, which stipulates that in cases where the Board is of the opinion that, in view of the likelihood of a grave injury to the environment it is not expedient to provide an opportunity to file objections against the proposed direction, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue directions without providing such an opportunity.

9. While the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board that, in cases of such deficiencies, no notices are required to be given to the recalcitrant units may have substantial force, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue, at the present stage, since the petitioner's industry has been found to have flouted the norms and standards prescribed both by the Central Pollution Control Board, and the State Pollution Control Board, pursuant to two different and independent inspections.

10. The impugned order stipulates that, on inspection it was found that at the inlet of the common effluent treatment plant, the pH was 11.36. While Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, would contend that the prescribed standard is between pH-6.5 to pH-9, Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the prescribed maximum is pH-11 at the inlet point of the common effluent treatment plant; and the variation is negligible. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner's unit was found to have exceeded the maximum prescribed.

11. Since Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner's unit has since brought the pH levels below the maximum prescribed limit, suffice it, in such circumstances, to direct the State Pollution Control Board to cause a fresh inspection of the petitioner's effluent treatment plant, and ascertain whether the total pH level still exceeds the maximum limit 5 prescribed in this regard. A report shall be submitted by the State Pollution Control Board to this Court by 22.04.2019.

12. Post on 22.04.2019.

13. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to all the parties, on payment of prescribed charges, today itself.

        (N.S. Dhanik, J.)                  (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
          12.04.2019                            12.04.2019
Rahul