C/SCA/12823/2010                               ORDER




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12823 of 2010
                           With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2011
                            In
       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12823 of 2010
                           With
      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11440 of 2012
                           With
      CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2014
                            In
      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11440 of 2012
=============================================
       BALUBHAI MANJIBHAI KACHADIYA & 7 others
                       Versus
 STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & 6 others
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BHUSHAN B OZA(1072) for the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent Nos. 1, 4
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ABHISHEK M
MEHTA(3469) for the Respondent No. 5
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent No. 6
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Respondent No. 3
MR SS ACHARYA(3272) for the Respondent No. 6
MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Respondent No. 6
MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL(707) for the Respondent No. 2
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the Respondent No. 7
=============================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
       and
       HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                           Date : 23/01/2020

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT)

1. The captioned two Special Civil Applications have been filed with following prayers:

Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020

C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER Prayer of Special Civil Application No.12823 of 2010 (A) Admit and allow this petition;

(B) Order and Direct the Respondent no.1 to 6 to scrupulously ensure compliance of the provisions of (1) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (2) The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (3) AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (4) AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982 (5) Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and (6) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

(C) To order and Direct the Respondent no.1 and 2 to initiate action against all such industrial establishment particularly Respondent no.5 and such officers of the Respondent no.1 and 2 found delinquent in performance of their statutory duties under the provisions of law due to which even as on today of highly toxic affluent hazardous to human life, marine life and detrimental to ecology as well as similar air and noise pollution is permitted and continued unbated by the respondent authorities.

(D) Direct Respondent no.1 to 6 to take effective and necessary measures to control air, water and noise pollution.

Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020

 C/SCA/12823/2010                                      ORDER




    (E)      Pending admission, hearing and final

disposal of this petition, the Respondent no.1, 2 and 6 be forthwith directed to cease and stop discharge of air and water pollution and stop noise pollution at Ankleshwar.

(F) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to appoint an Expert committee formed by the officials of the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) or any other Organization and or Institute engaged in research of t he Environment, Water, Air and Noise Pollution and further directing the National Institute of Oceanology (NIO) inter alia to address itself to the issues raised in this petition and to report to this Hon'ble Court within a specified time period as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct and this Hon'ble Court upon receipt of such report be pleased to pass such other order appropriate orders as it may deem fit from time to time considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case;

(G) Ad. Interim and or Interim Ex-parte Relief in terms of prayer 12(C) and 12(D);

(H) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020 C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER interest of justice.

Prayer of Special Civil Application No.11440 of 2012 (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow present petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding and declaring that the impugned order dated 8.4.2010 is unjust, harsh, arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the decision of the committee in its meeting held on 23.11.2009 and 28.1.2010 as conveyed to the petitioner in the impugned letter dated 19.7.2011, revising the COD norms applicable to the petitioner No.1 and directing the respondent authorities to implement the directions / recommendations of the committee in its meeting held on 17.2.2004 and 13/5/2005 and to fix all relevant parameters.

          (D)     YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to


                                 Page 4 of 10

                                                      Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020
 C/SCA/12823/2010                                     ORDER

issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing prohibiting / directing the respondents from taking any action, including any coercive action, on the basis and/or in furtherance of the impugned order dated 8.4.2010.

(E) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass appropriate order or direction, as and by way of interim relief, staying the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 8.4.2010.

(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass appropriate order or direction by way of interim relief, and directing the respondent authorities to initiate the process of implementing the directions / recommendations of the committee in its meeting held on 17.2.2004 and 13/5/2005.

(G) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(E) and 9(F) may kindly be granted.

(H) Any other and further relief/s as may be considered necessary and just may kindly be granted.

Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020

C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER

2. The moot question calling for attention and address was the proper monitoring of the pollution in the area in light of the provisions prevalent so that the citizens' life in the area could be improved and the problem of pollution could be taken care of. During the course of submission, the counsels for the parties urged the Court to take note of the gist of the matters as depicted in the note placed on record, which is reproduced as under:

"Re: SCA No.12823/2010 (I) (i) This public interest litigation wherein Respondent No.1 is State of Gujarat, Respondent No.2 is GPCB, Respondent No.3 is GIDC, Respondent No.4 is District Collector, Bharuch and Respondent No.5 is "Bharuch Eco-Aqua Infrastructure Ltd." and now renamed as "Narmada Clean Tech Ltd." and Respondent No.6 is CPCB.

(ii) The said PIL seeks direction to Respondent No.1 to 6 to scrupulously ensure the compliance of (a) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, (b) Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, (C) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (d) Air (Prevention and Control of Dilution) Rules, 1982, (e) Hazardous Waster (Management and Regulation) Rules, 1989 and (f) the Water (Prevention and Control of Dilution Act, 1974 Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020 C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER

(iii) The petition also seeks direction to Respondent No.1 and 2 to initiate action against all such industrial establishments as well as Respondent No.5 and the officers of Respondent No.1 and 2 found delinquent in performance of their statutory duties under the provisions of law.

    (II)     Re:     CA    No.6711/2011             in        SCA
    No.12823/2010

The said Civil Application has been filed by the Respondent No.5 i.e. Narmada Clean Tech Ltd. seeking extension of time to comply with the directions.

(III) Re: SCA No.11440/2012 Narmada Clean Tech Ltd. has filed the said writ petition challenging the unilateral fixation of the standard of chemical oxygen demand (COD) from 500 mg./lit. To 250 mg./lit.

    (IV)     Re:     CA    No.13626/2014              in      SCA
    No.11440/2012
    Petition       abovenamed       has     filed   the       Civil
    Application      and    sought        direction      to    the

Respondents to fix the norms for 'marine and outfall system' and not 'coastal discharge system'.

Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020

C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER A Few Important Dates Sr. No. Date Particulars Pg. No. 1 01/01/16 Ministry of Environment, 1378-1380 Government of India issued a Notification and fixed the norms for discharge of treated effluent into sea through proper marine outfall by, inter alia, providing that if there is minimum initial dilution of 150 times at the point of discharge and the minimum dilution of 1500 times at the point of 100 mtrs. away from discharge point, the, the State Board may relax the COD limits.

2 12/08/16 In view of the above, GPCB 1381-1388 fixed the COD limit at 500 mg./lit., while issuing an amendment consent.

3 14.06.2018 GPCB filed reply affidavit 1307-1310 through its Senior Environmental Engineer Mr. Gaurang H.Trivedi, stating, inter alia, that in the outlet of FETP, the COD norms and the NH-3 norms are now within the permissible limits and parameters.

3. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11440 of 2012 was submitted to be not now require to be dealt with in any manner, as there is publication of notification dated 1st January, 2016, whereunder the stand of the petitioner is vindicated, as the COD which was fixed by the Central Government was 250 and the State Board was empowered to appropriately relax the same. Pursuant thereto, an order/consent was issued on 12.08.2016 fixing COD standard at 500, as could be seen from the parameters Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020 C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER prescription in the separate compilation that should take care of the grievances of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.11440 of 2012.

4. So far as the remaining petition and pollution is concerned, the learned counsel Shri Oza submitted that the problem of sludge and the unpleasant odour emanating therefrom needs to be addressed, else it would be a constant cause of consternation and Court may pass appropriate order in that respect.

5. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar appearing for Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) submitted that sufficient care is to be taken and the same problem is not a problem which may create an issue as the efforts are on to take care of the sludge and the unpleasant odour emanating therefrom. As the assurance is coming forward from Gujarat Pollution Control Board, the Court need not at this stage, passed further order as there is complete cooperation between the Narmada Clean Tech Ltd. to undertake the necessary measures for achieving the results. She submits that the primary responsibility for taking care of the sludge and the order is upon the respondent no.5 and this is required to be handled as the statutory rules are provided for controlling and dealing with the Hazardous Waste Management Rules and the same shall be adhered to strictly.

6. Shri Desai, learned counsel for the association, submitted that the real issue is in respect of the tertiary plant to be operational at the end of respondent no.5. Counsel Shri Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020 C/SCA/12823/2010 ORDER Desai further submitted that the application is already made through GPCB to CPCB, which is not forming part of the record, the same shall be expeditiously consider by the concerned.

7. We are of the view that when the entire issue is resolved with few gray area still remaining and when the counsels for the parties have submitted that those areas are not so great a problematic as to require any further direction, we dispose of both the petitions with a liberty to all the concerned to approach the Court in case of difficulty in future. The application is dated 18.01.2020, the same is placed on record in the petition.

8. In view of the above, Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (A. P. THAKER, J.) Pankaj Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 03:41:34 IST 2020