Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
CWP No. 13862 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13862 of 2008
Date of Decision: 02.09.2008
M/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd. ..Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Pollution Control Board and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Sarvshri Ashok Aggarwal & Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocates
with Sarvshri Akshay Bhan, J.S.Sidhu & Vijay Pal, Advocates
for the petitioner
Mr. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3
Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition assails the validity of an order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, Patiala, issuing directions under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ( for short ' the Act' ), and proceedings of even date based on a personal hearing held on 23.6.2008, whereunder certain further directions regarding compliance of the provisions of the Act aforementioned, have been issued by the Board. The petitioner also prays for a mandamus directing the respondent-Board to permit the petitioner to operate its industrial unit to its full capacity and to extend the time for filling up of two katcha Lagoons and submission of the scheme for rejuvenation of ground water by a further period of four months. In addition, CWP No. 13862 of 2008 2 the petitioner seeks extension of time to instal and commission the equipment's (Boiler, Evaporator and Incinerator) by 12 months from the date of passing of the order. It has also prayed for dispensing with the condition, under which the petitioner has been asked to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 75 lacs to the respondent-Board. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.
The petitioner-company has established and is running a distillery and a food division in the name & style of Jagatjit Industries at G.T.Road, Hamira, District Kapurthala (Punjab). It claims to be producing approximately 120 KL of alcohol per day in its distillery. The Food Division is similarly producing a number of food items sold under different brand names. Since the industrial process which the petitioner's unit undertake is prone to cause pollution, the respondent Pollution Control Board appears to have taken note and pointed out shortcomings in compliance with the statutory requirements, and directed removal of the same. The measures taken by the petitioner were not, however, to the satisfaction of the Board, who appears to have withdrawn the consent given by it in terms of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner has appealed to the competent Appellate Authority. It is not in dispute that said appeal is pending disposal even at present.
In the meantime, the Pollution Control Board passed an order on 27.6.2008, in which, it referred to the various stages through which the proceedings have progressed in the past and the orders issued by the Board from time to time, calling upon to it to comply with the requirements of the statute so as to bring the pollution levels of the effluents within permissible limits. The Board has eventually taken the view that since the measures adopted by the petitioner-industry were not satisfactory, it was required to take CWP No. 13862 of 2008 3 further steps to ensure that the same are in place within a time frame. In the meantime, the petitioner was directed to reduce its production capacity to half of the permitted capacity. According to the respondent-Board, the petitioner industry having been permitted to manufacture 70 K.L. of alcohol per day, it could not take the output beyond 35 K.L. per day. The Board had also directed the petitioner-industry to take necessary steps and to upgrade its existing treatment system to achieve the prescribed levels within a period of two months from the date of the order. The petitioner-industry was further directed to submit a scheme for making adequate and environmentally sound arrangements to rejuvenate the quality of ground water within two months. In the event of the failure on the part of the petitioner-industry to comply with the directions issued to it, the units were to be deemed to have been closed in terms of Section 33-A of the Act.
By a separate order passed on the same date and described as "proceedings of personal hearing taken by the Chairman of the Board on 23.6.2008", the following directions were issued by the Board:-
" 1. The industry be issued directions under section 33- A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended in 1988 that :
a) The industry shall operate its industrial plant (distillery division) for the manufacture of potable liquor @ 35 KLD i.e. half of its production capacity.
b) That the industry shall make the necessary upgradation in its existing treatment system and achieve the prescribed standards within a period of two months.
c) That the industry shall submit the scheme for making adequate and environmentally sound arrangements to CWP No. 13862 of 2008 4 rejuvenate the quality of groundwater within a period of two months.
2. Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Jalandhar be directed to seal the fermentation section, distillation columns and other product related machinery/equipment of the industry, so as to reduce the production capacity of the industry to 35 KI/day. He may also be directed to ensure the compliance of directions issue to the industry.
3. Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar be directed to ensure that the industry should not be operated at capacity more than 35 KI/day.
4. The industry should furnish a bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 75 lacs as an assurance to achieve the standards prescribed by the Board under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to comply with the provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and as an assurance for lining of katcha lagoons and filling them good earth within 2 months, installation of evaporation and incineration technology within six months. You are requested to comply with the said decisions."
The present writ petition assails the correctness of the above orders and directions as already stated above.
When this writ petition came up before us on 25.8.2008 and was heard in part, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was agreeable to the disposal of the writ petition without insisting upon any material alteration in the orders and directions issued by the Board provided the time frame fixed by the Board for complying with the directions issued by it CWP No. 13862 of 2008 5 was suitably altered to enable the petitioner to achieve the milestones fixed by the Board. With a view to enabling the parties to evolve an agreed time frame, we had adjourned the matter for further hearing. Learned counsel for the parties today submit that the parties have agreed to the following time frame for various steps required to be taken in the direction of installation and commissioning of the proposed Effluent Treatment Plant in terms of the scheme that has been drawn up for that purpose by the petitioner:-
Sr. Nature of activity Effective cut No. of date
1. Operation of industrial plant to manufacture of Effective as on date potable liquor @ 35 KLD. If the industry at any point of time manufacture more than 35 KLD of portable alcohol the bank guarantee to be submitted by the industry as at Sr. No. 7(a) will be forfeited.
2. a) Upgradation of existing ETP so as to achieve -31.10.2008 the prescribed standards for discharge of effluent as per Act.
b) The industry shall make adequate and appropriate arrangements including laying of -31.12.2008 distribution network for uniform application of treated trade effluent, with G.I. pipe lines for irrigation/agriculture/forestry purposes. The industry will submit an irrigation management plan. The industry shall ensure that there should not be any stagnation in the agricultural/forestry area and anywhere else.
CWP No. 13862 of 2008 6
3. Submission of scheme for rejuvenation of ground water of the affected area.
a) To appoint a consultant of repute having - 20.09.2008 sufficient experience in the field.
b) Assessment of contamination of ground water and preparation of study report for - 30.11.2008 the rejuvenation of ground water.
c) Submission of scope of work for the -31.12.2008 rejuvenation of ground water quality to the Board.
d) Implementation of the scheme for the -31.5.2009 rejuvenation of ground water quality in the affected area.
4. a) Submission of scheme for closure of kucha -30.09.2008 lagoons in an environmentally sound technique designed by consultant of repute.
b) Completion of scheme for closure of lagoons - 31.1.2009 as per report of the consultant.
5. Installation of Evaporation and incineration Technology to achieve Zero discharge.
i) Multi Effect Evaporators.
-31.3.2009
a) Construction of civil works
b) Supply of multiple effect evaporator and other -31.12.2008 equipment at site by M/s Alfa Level India Ltd., Mumbai and other bought out items.
c) Installation of Multiple Effect Evaporators. -31.3.2009
-30.4.2009
d) Commissioning of multiple effect evaporator
ii) Installation of incinerator with slops fired Boiler
a) Construction of civil works. -30.4.2009 b.) Supply of incinerator with slop fired -31.3.2009 boiler and other equipment's at site.
c.) Installation of incinerator and slop -31.5.2009 fired boiler etc. ' d.) Commissioning of incinerator/slop fired -30.6.2009 boiler.
CWP No. 13862 of 2008 7
6. Achieving of zero discharge by the operation of -30.6.2009 multiple effect evaporator and incinerator.
7. a) Submission of bank guarantee of Rs. Seventy 10.9.2008
Five Lacs on prescribed performa as an
assurance to adhere to the schedule of
implementation as given in above paras and will operate its industrial plant to manufacture portable alcohol not more than 35 KLD.
b) The bank guarantee to be submitted by the industry for implementation of zero discharge --- per the above schedule is liable to be en-cashed, in case, the industry failed to adhere to the time schedule at any point of time.
It was submitted by Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that while the petitioner is ready to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.75 lacs, the encashment of the said bank guarantee should be made subject to the previous permission of this Court. Mr. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board was not agreeable to any such condition. He submitted that since the bank guarantee is required to be furnished in terms of the impugned order and direction issued by the Board, there is no need to insist on the previous permission of this Court for encashment especially when the present writ petition is being finally disposed of. He was, however, agreeable to a condition being incorporated in the impugned orders and directions to the effect that if the bank guarantee is encashed at any stage for non-compliance with the directions contained in the two impugned orders of the Board, the respondents shall not make use of the amount received by it for the purpose for which it has been provided for a period of four weeks, during which time the petitioner shall have the CWP No. 13862 of 2008 8 opportunity to seek such redress from the competent court, as may be available to them. Mr. Sarin further submitted that since the petitioner has during the pendency of this writ petition applied for grant of fresh consent, the petitioner should be asked not only to withdraw the appeals filed by it against the order of withdrawl of consent but also the applications seeking fresh consent, both of which matters shall stand concluded by the present order granting extension to the petitioner till the end of June, 2009. Mr. Aggarwal is agreeable to that suggestion.
In the circumstances and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the time frame, as indicated herein above, for installation and commissioning of the Effluent Treatment Plant and various other measures referred to and reproduced therein, shall stand extended as indicated in the body of this order. The orders passed and directions issued by the respondent-Board shall to that extent stand modified. We further direct that the amount of Rs. 75 lacs covered by the Bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner in terms of the impugned orders and directions issued by the Board, shall not be utilised by the respondent Board for a period of four weeks from the date the encashment takes place to enable the petitioner to seek such redress against the utilisation thereof as may be otherwise open to it in law. Needless to say that petitioner shall withdraw the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority as also the fresh applications for grant of consent, as agreed to by Mr. Aggarwal. We also make it clear that in case of default on the part of the petitioner to comply with any one of the conditions stipulated by the Board within the extended/modified time frame fixed above, the unit shall be deemed to have been closed in terms of Section 33-A of the Act. Conversely, in case the Effluent Treatment Plant is installed and commissioned within the CWP No. 13862 of 2008 9 stipulated time frame and it is found to be effective in bringing the discharge of effluents to the standard prescribed by the Board, the petitioner shall be deemed to have given its consent in terms of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. We also make it clear that this order shall not prevent the respondent-Board from taking any decision regarding enhancement in the production capacity of the petitioner unit during the period ending 30.06.2009 if it is otherwise satisfied that such an enhancement is factually justified and legally permissible.
No costs.
(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.09.2008 'ravinder'