ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.

1. People Health and Development Council, represented by its Secretary S.M. Govindasamy, East Sottaiyampalayam, R.M. Puthur, Erode-5 has filed Writ Petition No. 5494 of 1998 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 therein, namely, Forest and Environment Department, Housing and Urban Development Department, Pollution Control Board and Collector, Erode District respectively to close down Tannery Units of respondents 5 to 38. One M. Thangavelu of Ayagoundarapalayam, Gnanapathipalayam, Erode has filed Writ Petition No. 30153 of 2003 praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, namely, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the District Collector, Erode and the District Environment-Welfare Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Erode-3 to take action against all the industries in and around Erode by closing the industries.

2. The case of the People Health and Development Council, as set out in W.P.No. 5494/1998 is briefly stated hereunder:

It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is a voluntary organisation working for the protection of environment and promoting public health in and around the District of Erode. The said writ petition was filed against the operation of 34 tanneries which were shown as respondents 5 to 38 situated in Erode District in and around Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat, P.B. Agraharam Town Panchayat, Periyasemur Town Panchayat, Veerappanchatram Town Panchayat, Gangapuram and Kandampalayam Village Panchayats. These tanneries are functioning without proper authorisation and in violation of all the laws. They are causing severe water, air and soil pollution. Out of these 34 tanneries, 18 are located in agricultural zones and about five are situated in residential areas. The five tanneries mentioned as Sl.Nos. 1,2,4,13 and 34 in the Annexure to the writ petition are located within 1 K.M. of Kalingarayan Canal which is the main water source for all the villages in that area. The polluting tanneries also lie within the range of one K.M. which is in violation of G.O.Ms.No. 213 of 89 dated 30-3-1989 which prohibits such location. These tanneries which are functioning in agricultural, residential and industries zones within one kilo metre radius of water source have all started functioning without obtaining proper sanction from the 2nd respondent herein.

3. It is their further case that all the tanneries are letting out untreated effluents into Cauvery River. The tanneries use about 170 types of chemicals in the chrome tanning process. These effluents have spoiled the physico-chemical properties of the soil and have contaminated the ground water by percolation. This is causing untold misery to the residents of that area. There is a unbearable stench in the surrounding air near every tannery making it impossible for the local residents to live. The letting out of effluents into the water has polluted both surface water as also ground water to such an extent that the water which is used for irrigation and drinking has become unfit for the same. Agriculture has been affected badly and yields have gone down considerably. This has caused great financial hardship to local farmers. The household articles and utensils have become corroded because of the use of such contaminated water. The relatives of the petitioner are refusing to visit him and his family and his family in their house owing to the poor quality of water and air in their house and nearby. Because of the chemical residues remaining in the ear and skin of the cattle carcasses even after the preliminary treatment of the skin, the local stray dogs which have been feeding on the waste remains, are growing to an abnormal size.

4. The Government of Tamil Nadu has acquired more than 2,800 acres of land in Perunthurai Taluk of Erode District for locating all the hazardous industries. The Government has also assured financial, technical, and other assistance for setting up modern effluent treatment plants. However, the tannery owners have been resisting and not cooperating with the Government plans by shifting their units to the Perunthurai Industrial Estate. The petitioner has made several representations in respect of individual tanneries to the respondents 1 to 4. The Pollution Control Board has not taken effective and prompt steps so far. They have no effective machinery to take action against the erring tanneries.

5. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 30153/2003 is briefly stated hereunder:

River Bhavani is running through Erode District. Apart from the river Bhavani there is a canal called Kalingarayan canal. The people living in and around Erode are totally depending upon the Kalingarayan Canal for irrigation and drinking water. 15,000 acres of agricultural lands are classified wet in resettlement records for the past 100 years. There are about hundreds of major industries engaged in dying processing and the calendering process in and around the banks of Kalingarayan Canal. Those industries do not have facility to treat effluent materials in the factory premises itself. All these industries discharged the effluent water into the Kalingarayan canal. Due to the discharge of poisonous effluent water into the Kalingarayan canal, the water has become totally poisonous and unfit for irrigation. Due to the mixing of effluent water in the river, the ground water level is highly affected. The industries should have facility for treating the effluent materials inside their unit. The discharge of untreated water effluents is illegal and against the provisions of Pollution Control Act. The industrial unit did not care for the lives of the people. SIPCOT Industrial Globe Centre has already been set up by the Government at Perundurai wherin eight common effluent treatment plants would be established for the tanneries and dying industries. If the industries in and around Erode are shifted to Perundurai, the people will be relieved of their sufferings from pollution. At present, the industries are functioning, in total violation of the provisions of the Pollution Control Act.

6. Before referring to the stand taken by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in the form of counter, additional counter and reply, let us refer the case of the other respondents. Fourth respondent in W.P.No. 3011153/2003 and 38th respondent in W.P.No. 5494/98-M.A. Bagrudeen has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that they have erected an effluent treatment plant of their own costing nearly Rs.40 lakhs and that the same has also been duly inspected by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. They also stated that after being satisfied with the same, consent was given by the Pollution Control Board and they have been duly remitting the renewal fees periodically. There is no discharge of effluent either into the stream, well, sewer or the land. The agricultural operations are going on in and around Erode as usual and no set back has been caused either to the agricultural operations or to the irrigation facilities or to the human health or to the quality of food grains on account of any activity attributable to the 4th respondent. The Pollution Control Board through their Unit monitoring their tanneries and pollution is not caused at their instance.

7. 5th and 6th respondents in W.P.No. 5494/1998, namely, Hyder Ali and Rafiz and K.K.S.K. Leather Processors Private Limited filed a common counter affidavit wherein it is stated that they have been properly complying with the requisite statutory rules, regulation and norms. Most modern effluent treatment plants were installed in both their premises, in 1987 and 1995, at the cost of Rs. One Crore and Rs.80 lakhs respectively and since then these respondents have been properly treating the effluent generated and the treated effluent is discharged on the lands owned by these respondents. They have set up a Research and Development (R & D) wing of their own in which qualified technicians are working full time and are supervising and monitoring the entire treatment process. Impressed by their "IN-PLANT SYSTEM", the UNIDO invited them to present their experience by publishing a technical paper in their International Workshop on cleaner tanning technology held in September, 1998. They also filed an additional counter affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, the Authority for the Loss of Ecology (Prevention and Payment of Compensation) for the State of Tamil Nadu was asked to inspect all the 1961 existing industries within 1 K.M. radius of the specified water sources and submit their report to the Court, for facilitating this Court to take a final decision on the question of relocation of any of the said industries. The said authority has also submitted a report. While the matter is still pending consideration of this Court, the Pollution Control Board ("TNPCB" in short) has erroneously passed shifting orders dated 18-12-2002. In so far as their units are concerned, they are complying with the standards prescribed by TNPCB. They are also sincerely and honestly taking steps to install the Reverse Osmosis Plant suggested by TNPCB.

8. Respondents 7, 8 and 22, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37 filed separate counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. They also highlighted the necessary steps taken by them, and the approval given by TNPCB and other factual and scientific information regarding their industries. Inasmuch as they raised identical and similar averments, there is no need to refer the same one by one.

9. Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board furnished elaborate details in the form of counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit in both the writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos. 5494/98 and 30153/2003. With reference to averments in W.P.No. 5494/98, it is stated that no tannery units mentioning in the annexure to the writ petition are permitted to operate without having pollution control measures. The conventional treatment systems provided by these tanneries are unable to contain the TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) parameter and this parametric value does not conform to the limit of 2100 mg/lit as prescribed by the Board. The discharge of high TDS trade effluent from the treatment system provided by the tanneries pollute the land, water sources, ground-water and affect the agricultural activity; hence frequent complaints have been received from the public of tannery clusters. The TNPCB is in strict compliance with the direction oof the Supreme Court in W.P. (C)No. 914/91 dated 28-8-96 and no new tanneries are permitted to set up within the prohibited area. All the 34 tanneries stated in the affidavit are functioning with individual effluent treatment plants. Most of these tanneries are discharging their effluent into Cauvery River or Kalingarayan channel either directly or through the roadside drain. The said water from the Kalingarayan channel which takes off from Bhavani River and join with Cauvery River has been utilised for irrigation of 8300 hectares of agricultural land. The water from the Cauvery River is supplied to public of Erode Municipality and nearby surrounding Town Panchayats apart from its use to agricultural lands along its course on the downstreams. The said water sources are included in G.O.Ms.No. 213, (E&F) Department dated 30-3-89, which prohibits 14 categories of industries including tanneries within 1 Km. Also the Cauvery river and its tributaries are included in the G.O.Ms.No. 127, (E&F) Department dated 8-5-98 which prohibits the said categories of industries within 5 km radius. Frequent complaints have been received from the public of Erode regarding ground water pollution caused by the discharge of high TDS trade effluent from these tanneries into water sources.

10. The Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development (TACID), a Government of Tamil Nadu enterprises have put up an Industrial Growth Centre at Perundurai and Ingur villages, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District by acquiring 1133 hectares (2800 acres) of land. This industrial growth centre has been planned to accommodate various types of industries including textile dyeing, tanneries and chemicals. The TACID applied to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 2-4-1996 and obtained consent to establish under Water and Air Acts from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 18-8-97. Subsequently, during 1999, the said Perundurai Industrial Growth Centre has been merged with SIPCOT, Tamil Nadu that is now known as SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre (SIGC). During December, 2002, since no concrete proposal was forthcoming from the tanneries at Erode to combat the TDS problem, the TNPCB has issued direction under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended to all the 44 tanneries at Erode including 34 tanneries mentioned in the affidavit to shift their industrial activity to SIGC and commonly implement the comprehensive treatment proposal for zero discharge of effluent in order to protect and prevent the water sources viz., Kalingarayan channel and Cauvery River and to redress the public complaints. The effluent discharged from effluent treatment systems provided by the 44 tanneries including 34 tanneries mentioned in this case are not complying the TDS norms prescribed by the Board. The Board has been exhorting these tanneries to implement Reserve Osmosis (R.O.)/other membrane technologies with suitable evaporation systems for the disposal of rejects, to achieve zero discharge. Some of the tanneries have submitted their proposal for implementation of common tertiary treatment plant, which is yet to be technically scrutinised. However, the proposal submitted does not achieve zero discharge. These tanneries at Erode have to implement an approved comprehensive treatment system on or before March, 2005 and that the effluent is within the norms prescribed by the TNPC Board and preferably achieves zero discharge. All the 44 tanneries including the 34 tanneries mentioned in the petitioner affidavit have to comply with the time limit.

11. The Pollution Control Board has also filed an additional counter affidavit. All the 34 tanneries mentioned in W.P.No. 5494/98 have provided Effluent Treatment Plant system individually comprising primary treatment of physio-chemical system and secondary treatment of biological treatment system. However, in spite of providing the system, they could not achieve zero discharge. The significance and importance of Kalingarayan canal, which takes off from Bhavani river and joins with Cauvery river finally, is that the water from it has been utilized for irrigation of 8300 hectares of agricultural land. Likewise, the significance and importance of Cauvery River, a major river source for the State of Tamil Nadu, is that the water from this river is supplied to public of Erode Municipality and nearby surrounding Town Panchayats apart from its use to agricultural lands along its course on the down streams. Several complaints about the pollution caused by these tanneries have been received from the public, Farmers Association, Non Governmental Organisations, Office of the District Collector, Erode and also from the Chief Minister's Cell. The TDS content in the effluent discharged from the 34 tanneries are far exceeding the norms prescribed of 2100 mg/lit. by the Board and ordered to be complied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its final judgement dated 28-8-1996 in W.P.(C) No. 914/91. The parameter TDS in the effluent discharged from the existing primary and secondary treatment system could be contained less than 2100 mg/lit., under their individual Effluent Treatment Plants only by implementing suitable membrane technologies (Reverse Osmosis System) with suitable evaporation system for the rejects as tertiary treatment. By implementing the said R.O. system, the standards of 2100 mg/lit. for TDS could be achieved and further the permeate of R.O. System could be reused completely in the tanning process. Hence, by implementing the membrane technologies the effluent generated in the tanning process could be completely recovered and reused in the process, leaving a small quantity of rejects which could be evaporated through suitable evaporation systems, and discharge of treated effluent not satisfying the norms either on land for irrigation or on land for open percolation/into water courses could be avoided. The said R.O. system has been implemented by two tanneries at Ambur in Vellore District are functioning satisfactorily in containing the TDS matter in the effluent. The permeate of this R.O. system is being effectively reused in the tanning process completely. Further, the implementation of the said R.O. system are nearing completion in another two units and the works pertaining to it are under progress in another 5 units in Vellore District. The implementation of R.O. system with suitable evaporation system as tertiary effluent system for the existing secondary treated trade effluent either commonly or individually would ensure zero discharge of effluent and complete reuse of treated effluent and this will not affect the ground water and all other water sources mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The proposal furnished by M/s. Erode Tannery Owners Association is in preliminary stage only. Accordingly, it is proposed to blend the treated tannery effluent with the treated sewage effluent arising from Erode town. The Association is yet to submit a detailed technical proposal for diluting the treated trade effluent from the proposed Common Tertiary Treatment Plant with sewage, which will need clearance from the local body and approval from the National River Conservation Directorate. Further, this proposal also cannot be claimed as zero effluent discharge system. The tanneries at Erode have to implement the approved comprehensive treatment system on or before March, 2005. Similar information/steps taken and to be taken are furnished by the Board in W.P.No. 30153/2003.

12. We have heard Ms. D. Nagasaila, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 5494/1998 and Mr. R. Dhanapal Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 30153/2003; and Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in W.P.No. 5494/1998; Mrs. Rita Chandrasekar for (TNPCB) 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5494/1998 and for respondents 1 and 3 in W.P.No. 30153/2003; Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior counsel for respondents 5, 6 and 30 in W.P.No. 5494/1998; Mr. B. Kumarasamy for respondents 7, 17, 32 and 34 in W.P.No. 5494/1998; Mr. G. Masilamani, senior counsel for respondents 9 to 13, 15,18 to 20, 23, 26, 27, 35, 36 in W.P.No. 5494/98; Mr. D. Selvaraj for respondents 14 and 25 in W.P.No. 5494/98; Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, senior counslel for respondents 8, 22 and 29 in W.P.No. 5494/98; Mr. V. Thillaisamy for respondents 21, 31, 33 and 36 in W.P.No. 5494/98; Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan for 38th respondent in W.P.No. 5494/98 and 4th respondent in W.P.No. 30153/2003; and Mr. A. Suresh for 5th respondent in W.P.No. 30153/2003.

13. Before proceeding to consider the facts of these cases, it is necessary to state a few words about the importance of and need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution imposes as one of the fundamental duties on every citizen the duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Realising the importance of the prevention and control of pollution of water for human existence, Parliament has passed the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act 6 of 1974) to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith.

14. In addition to the above Act, Parliament has also passed the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) which has been brought into force throughout India with effect from November 19, 1986. Section 3 of this Act confers powers on the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. 'Environment' includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. (Vide Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986). Under Section 3(2)(iv) of the said Act the Central Government may lay down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Government may under Section 5 of the Act, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under that Act issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority and such authority is bound to comply with such directions. The power to issue directions under the said section includes the power to direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process or stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service. Section 9 of the said Act imposes a duty on every person to take steps to prevent or mitigate the environmental pollution. Section 15 of the said Act contains provisions relating to penalties that may be imposed for the contravention of any of the provisions of the said Act or directions issued thereunder.

15. Now let us consider the relevant statutory provisions of The Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974, which are applicable to the cases on hand. The words "pollution", "stream", and "trade effluent" are defined in the Act as follows:

"Section 2(e) "pollution" means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms;

(j) "stream" includes-

(i) river;

(ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being dry);

(iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);

(iv) sub-terranean waters;

(v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may be, to such point as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

(k) "trade effluent" includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any industry operation or process, or treatment and disposal system, other than domestic sewage."

Sections 3 and 4 empower both Central and State Governments to constitute Boards in order to exercise powers and perform the functions in terms of the provisions. Among the other provisions, Sections 24 and 25 are relevant for these cases. Section 24 speaks about prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc., and Section 25 pertains to restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. Sub-section (4) of Section 25 enables the State Board to grant its consent referred to in sub-Section (1), subject to certain conditions. It runs as follows:

Section 25(4). The State Board may-

(a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1), subject to such conditions as it may impose, being-

(i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 25, conditions as to the point of discharge of sewage or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet for discharge of sewage;

(ii) in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from the land or premises from which the discharge or new discharge is to be made; and

(iii) that the consent will be valid only for such period as may be specified in the order, and any such conditions imposed shall be binding on any person establishing or taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system of extension or addition thereto, or using the new or altered outlet, or discharging the effluent from the land or premises aforesaid; or

(b) refuse such consent for reasons to be recorded in writing."

Section 44 prescribes penalty for contravention of Section 25 or Section 26, according to which, any person who contravened the provisions of Section 25 or 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extent to six years and with fine.

16. Polluting industries in the cases before us are leather industries and few dying factories. Though the leather industry is of vital importance to the country as it generates foreign exchange and provides employment avenues, it has no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose as a health-hazard. As observed in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India , it cannot be permitted to expand or even to continue with the present production unless it tackles by itself the problem of pollution created by the said industry. Some of the tanneries operating in the District of Erode by now have installed necessary pollution control measures. They have been polluting the environment for over a decade and in some cases even for a longer period. The Supreme Court has in various orders indicated that those tanneries are liable to pay pollution fine, the polluters must compensate the affected persons and also pay cost of the damaged ecology. The Pollution Control Board has the power under the Environment Act and the Rules to lay down standards for emissions or discharge of environmental pollutants. Rule 3 (2) of the Rules even permits the Board to specify more stringent standards from those provided under the Rules.

17. In the light of the statutory provisions, and keeping in view that a State Pollution Control Board has been constituted with enormous power conferred on it, now we shall consider the steps taken by the polluting industries, the preventive measures being enforced by the Pollution Control Board.

18. In the earlier part of our order, we have referred to the stand taken by the tanneries and dying factories. Though it is stated that they provided Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP)in all these industries/factories as per the norms prescribed by the Central Leather Research Institute and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the fact remains that they have not fulfilled the standard prescribed as per the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed a status report containing the details of name and address, consent status, ETP status, mode of effluent disposal and confluence point of effluents of 34 tannery units in the annexure to his counter affidavit. It is stated that no tannery units are permitted to operate without having pollution control measures. The conventional treatment systems provided by these tanneries are unable to contain the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) parameter and this parametric value does not conform to the limit of 2100 mg/lit as prescribed by the Board. The discharge of high TDS trade effluent from the treatment system provided by the tanneries pollute the land, water sources, ground water and affect the agricultural activity. It is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its final order dated 28-8-1996 in W.P (C) No. 914 of 1991, ordered that the standards stipulated by the Board regarding TDS (2100 mg/lit.,) and approved by NEERI shall be operative. All the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu shall comply with the said standards. The quality of ambient water has to be maintained through the standards stipulated by TNPCB. It is the stand of the Board that in order to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Board has been exhorting continuously the tanneries in the State to implement treatment technologies such as membrane systems with suitable evaporation methods for the disposal of rejects. It is the further stand of the Board that by implementing the R.O. system, the standards of 2100 mg/lit for TDS could be achieved. Further, the permeate of the R.O. system could be reused completely in the tanning process and thus zero discharge of tannery effluent could be ensured.

19. The information furnished by the Board would go to show that all the 34 tanneries stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No. 5494/1998 are functioning with individual effluent treatment plants. However, most of the tanneries are discharging their effluent into Cauvery River or Kalingarayan channel either directly or through the roadside drain. The said water from the Kalingarayan channel which takes off from Bhavani River and join with Cauvery River has been utilised for irrigation of 8300 hectares of agricultural land. Further, the water from the Cauvery River is supplied to public of Erode Municipality and nearby surrounding Town Panchayats apart from its use to agricultural lands along its course on the down streams. The said water sources are included in G.O.Ms.No. 213, (E&F) Department dated 30-3-1989, which prohibits 14 categories of industries including tanneries within 1 Km. It is further seen that the Cauvery River and its tributaries are included in G.O.Ms.No. 127, (E&F) Department dated 8-5-98 which prohibits the said categories of industries within 5 Km radius.

20. We have already referred to the relevant remedial measures taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu, namely, setting of Industrial Growth Centre at Perundurai and Ingur villages, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District by acquiring 1133 hectares (2800 acres) of land. The Board has explained that this industrial growth centre has been planned to accommodate various types of industries including textile dyeing, tanneries and chemicals. It is further seen that the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development (TACID) applied to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 2-4-1996 and obtained consent to establish under Water and Air Acts from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 18-8-97. Thereafter, in 1999, the said Perundurai Industrial Growth Centre has been merged with SIPCOT and that is now known as SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre (SIGC). It is significant to mention that this industrial complex is located away from the prohibited area as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No. 213, E and F Department, dated 30-3-1989 and G.O.Ms.No. 127, E and F Department, dated 8-5-1998. It is brought to our notice that the District Collector, Erode has addressed the Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Chennai, in his letter dated 24-3-2001 to allot land in the SIGC, Perundurai for the tanneries. The status report further shows that since no concrete proposal was forthcoming from the tanneries at Erode to combat the TDS problem, the TNPCB has issued direction under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended to all the 44 tanneries at Erode including 34 tanneries mentioned in the affidavit in W.P.No. 5494/1998 to shift their industrial activity to SIGC and commonly implement the comprehensive treatment proposal for zero discharge of effluent in order to protect and prevent the water sources viz., Kalingarayan channel and Cauvery River and to redress the public complaints. Pursuant to the said direction, M/s. Perundurai Leather Industries Eco Security Private Limited (PLIES) formulated by 25 member tanneries have come forward to implement a CETP system with zero effluent discharge concept at SIGC, Perundurai, Erode District with Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai, a pioneer leather research institute as their technical partner. It is further brought to our notice that as per the "Precautionary Principle" the Board has also issued consent establishment to the said CETP Company on 16-08-2002, and that the implementation of the above CETP system by M/s. PLIES as per the conditions imposed in the consent for establishment issued by the Board ensure zero discharge of effluent and hence, this will not affect the prevailing environment of the industrial area of SIGC, Perundurai, Erode.

21. As said earlier, though all the 34 tanneries mentioned in W.P.No. 5494/1998 have provided ETP system individually comprising primary treatment of physio-chemical system and secondary treatment of biological treatment system, the additional counter affidavit filed by the Board shows that the TDS discharged from the ETP system has not reduced. The details furnished in the additional counter affidavit dated 7-1-2005 shows that the TDS value is more than the prescribed norm of 2100 mg/lit. The discharge of high TDS effluent increases the salinity of receiving body and thus pollutes the land, water sources and ground water and affects the agricultural activity. The facts and particulars furnished by the Board clearly show that the TDS content in the effluent discharged from the 34 tanneries are far exceeding the norms presciribed of 2100 mg/lit. and this proves that the existing treatment provided by these 34 tanneries including the 5th, 6th and 12th respondent (in W.P.No. 5494/1998) is unable to contain the pollutant, TDS. Hence the claim of the tanneries that they are continuously complying with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board norms is proved incorrect.

22. The Board has also suggested that the parameter TDS in the effluent discharged from the existing primary and secondary treatment system could be contained less than 2100 mg/lit. under the individual Effluent Treatment Plants only by implementing suitable membrane technologies (Reverse Osmosis System) with suitable evaporation system for the rejects as tertiary treatment. By implementing the said R.O. system, the standards of 2100 mg/lit. for TDS could be achieved and further the permeate of R.O. system could be reused completely in the tanning process. Hence, by implementing the membrane technologies the effluent generated in the tanning process could be completely recovered and reused in the process, leaving a small quantity of rejects which could be evaporated through suitable evaporation systems, and discharge of treated effluent not satisfying the norms either on land for irrigation or on land for open percolation/into water courses could be avoided. The discharge of effluent by the respondent tanneries, after treatment in their existing treatment systems, on land for irrigation, without complying the TDS norms either within unit premises or land outside the premises owned by the unit cannot be construed as zero discharge system. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that the above R.O. system has been implemented by two tanneries at Ambur in Vellore District and they are functioning satisfactorily in containing the TDS matter in the effluent. According to the Board, the permeate of this R.O. system is being effectively reused in the tanning process completely. The Board has also informed this Court that the CETP of M/s. PLIES at SIGC, Perundurai, Erode District has proposed to implement the zero effluent discharge system and the said CETP was permitted to establish the said zero effluent discharge system by this Court in W.P.No. 1682 of 2003. Though the Board has directed all the tanneries at Erode to implement the approved comprehensive treatment system on or before March, 2005, all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents requested this Court that by granting a reasonable time, it would be possible for them to achieve the TDS norms of 2100 mg/lit by implementing the R.O. system.

23. In the light of our discussion, it is clear that though all the tanneries in and around Kalingarayan channel and Bhavani River have Effluent Treatment Plants, in the absence of implementation of suitable membrane technologies, namely, Reverse Osmosis system (R.O. system), the TDS in the effluent discharged from the existing treatment system is not under control. Undoubtedly, all the tanneries and dying factories have to strictly adhere to the norms namely that the effluent discharge either on land or any water course shall not contain constituents in excess of the tolerance limit laid down for TDS as 2100 mg/lit. In order to achieve this goal, they have to adopt and implement suitable membrane technologies, Reverse Osmosis system with evaporation system for the rejects as tertiary system. This will go a long way in curbing the environmental hazard. For compliance of the same, this Court feels that a further reasonable time may be granted. Accordingly, all the tanneries/dyeing units located in Erode District are granted time till 31-08-2005. The District Collector and the officers of the TNPCB are directed to give wide publicity in the area concerned regarding the direction and the extension of time granted for compliance. It is made clear that those who are not willing to adhere to this direction and adopt the R.O. system, they are free to shift their concern to SIGC, Perundurai within that period. The Collector and the officers of the Board are directed to make periodical inspection to the tanneries/dyeing units for proper implementation of the above direction. Before conclusion, as observed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , though we are conscious of the fact that these tanneries bring more employment and revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people. Post these writ petitions for reporting compliance on 16-09-2005.