Dismissed

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District Badaun Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

NGT25 Mar 2022Appeal No. 28/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT rejected the appeal against an order levying Rs. 4.8 lakhs compensation for water pollution and violations. The Tribunal noted serious breaches including bypassing effluent treatment and illegal groundwater abstraction. It directed coercive measures including potential closure.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the compensation order was dismissed; the State PCB is directed to take coercive measures including closure till compliance and assess compensation for past violations.

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District … — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 04

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Appeal No. 28/2020

¶6

(With report dated 03.02.2022)

¶7

M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

¶8

Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Member Secretary U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Date of hearing: 25.03.2022

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Appellant: Mr. Amarjeet Kumar & Mr. Tarun Khurana, Advocates Respondent(s): Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This appeal has been preferred against the order of the U.P. State PCB dated 03.07.2020 under Section 33A read with Section 27(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 levying environmental compensation on ‘Polluter Pays’ principle to the extent of Rs. 4.8 lakhs for continued violation for 24 days from 11.12.2019 to 04.01.2020. The appeal was filed on 26.08.2020 and was considered on 12.04.2021 alongwith other appeals raising identical issues being Appeal No. 23/2020 and other connected matters filed by the sister concerns of the appellant.

¶17

¶18

Vide order dated 12.04.2020, the Tribunal directed a joint Committee of CPCB and State PCB to independently ascertain the compliance status and file a report before this Tribunal.

¶19

In pursuance of above, a report dated 03.02.2022 has been filed. In the inspection report filed after inspection conducted on 09.12.2021 following observations and recommendations have been made:

¶20

“3.0 Observations:

¶21

1. The unit has infrastructure for production of Sugar using Sugar cane as major raw material with consented capacity of 1250 TCD. During the inspection, the unit was in operation. The unit has started its cane crushing on 18.11.2021 for the current crushing season 2021-22.

¶22

2. The unit was granted Consent to Operate under the Water (PCP) Act, 1974 and the Air (PCP) Act, 1981 by UPPCB, which was valid upto 31.12.2020. The unit has applied for renewal on 10.10.2021, which violates the Water (PCP) Act, 1974 and the .Air (PCP) Act, 1981 to apply Consent to Operate 90 days before expiry of consent. Further, the unit is presently operated without consent to operate from SPCB.

¶23

3. The unit has presently one (01) bore well to meet its fresh water requirement. Electromagnetic water meter is installed in bore well. The unit has not maintained log book of fresh water consumption. The unit has obtained NOC from CGWA, which was valid upto June,2020. The unit has not applied for renewal of NOC.

¶24

4. The unit has established Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), which comprises of following:

¶25

a. Oil and Grease Skimmer

¶26

b. Equalization Tank

¶27

c. Tube Settler,

¶28

d. Aeration Tank

¶29

e. Secondary Clarifier

¶30

f. Multi Grade Filter,

¶31

g. Activated Carbon Filter,

¶32

h. Sludge Drying Beds and

¶33

i. Treated effluent storage lagoon-3750 m³

¶34

5. During inspection, effluent is received to ETP. Sample was collected from Equalization Tank, Aeration Tank and Outlet of ETP: Analysis results are presented below:

¶35

Parameters

¶36

¶37

Sampling location	pH	Colour (Hz)	SS (mg/L)	TDS '(mg/L)	BOD (mg/L)	COD (mg/L)	O&G (mg/I)	MLSS (mg/L)	MLVSS (mg/L)
Equalizatio n Tank	12.5	-	1341	3736	1363	2272	-	-
Aeration Tank	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1083	872
Outlet of ETP	8.25	-	354	584	70	167	BM!	-
OCEMS Value	7.25	--	23.1	--	22.1	167.9	-	--	--
Standards as per GSR dated (For disposal on land)	35(E), 5.5-8.5	14.01.2016 --	100	2100	100	---	10	--	---

¶38

below detection Range ( <5 mg/I) for O&G

¶39

6. It is evident from the results that treated effluent is not meeting with stipulated norms with respect of SS parameters. MLSS and MLVSS in Aeration Tank is very low, which indicate poor Operation and maintenance of ETP.

¶40

7. Treated effluent from ETP is partially sent to Lagoon and remaining is discharged into drain, which meet Sot River, which ultimately meet River Ganga.

¶41

8. The unit has installed OCEMS at the outlet of ETP and it was informed that OCEMS data is connected with UPPCB and CPCB server.

¶42

9. Significant variation was observed with OCEMS value and sample collected during inspection with respect of TSS and BOD parameters. It indicates that the unit is not calibrating its OCEMS.

¶43

10. Launder of Primary Clarifier was not levelled.

¶44

11. Oil and Grease Skimmer was not operational.

¶45

12. The unit has provided electromagnetic flow meter at the inlet of ETP, which was not operational during inspection.

¶46

13. The unit has provided separate energy meter for ETP and maintain log book.

¶47

14. The unit has not provided filtrate system at Sludge Drying Beds.

¶48

15. The unit has Installed Sulphur Recovery Plant for treatment of spray pond overflow, which was found nonoperational and defunct.

¶49

16. The unit has provided a lagoon with capacity -3750 m³ for storage of treated effluent. The unit has reported to use of treated effluent in 30 Hectare. But, no system for use of

¶50

¶51

treated effluent for irrigation and irrigation area was observed.

¶52

17. During inspection, it was observed that the unit is in the process to construct 02 lagoons for storage of raw effluent with size approx. 15 mx12mx3 m each without any permission from SPCB.

¶53

18. During inspection, it was observed that the unit has provided a bypass drain at the inlet of ETP, which was found temporary closed with soil. However, drain carrying treated effluent indicates that the unit is regularly bypassing effluent. Soil filled at inlet of ETP connected with bypass drain seems to be recently filled.

¶54

19. Sample was collected from the bypass drain. Analysis results are presented below:

¶55

Sampling location

¶56

			Parameters
	pH	SS (mg/L)	TDS (mg/L)	BOD (mg/L)	COD (mg/L)
Bypass drain	6.59	259	730	360	648
Standards as per GSR 35(E), dated 14.01.2016. (For disposal on surface water)	5.5-8.5	30	2100	30	--

¶57

20. It is evident from the results that the unit is bypassing polluted effluent to drain through ETP inlet.

¶58

21. The unit has 02 boilers with capacity 2X20 TPH using bagasse as fuel. Emissions from Boilers are emitted through common stack of height 30 m.

¶59

Recommendations:

¶60

1. The unit should immediately dismantle bypass drain. The unit should ensure that all effluent streams are integrated and should be routed through ETP.

¶61

2. The unit should operate with valid consent under the Water (PCP) Act, 1974 and the Air (PCP) Act, 1981.

¶62

3. The unit should properly operate its ETP to meet with stipulated norms. The unit should ensure operation of all units of ETP system.

¶63

4. The unit should ensure to operate Sulphur Recovery Plant and maintain proper log book for operation of the plant.

¶64

5. The unit should maintain proper log book of fresh water consumption.

¶65

¶66

6. The unit should maintain log book of effluent generation.

¶67

7. The unit should obtain NOC from ground water abstraction.

¶68

8. The unit should properly level launder of Secondary Clarifier.

¶69

The unit should either dismantled additional lagoons for storage of treated/raw effluent as obtain necessary permission for construction of lagoons for storage of raw effluent.

¶70

The unit should provide filtrate system in Sludge Drying Beds and ensure that filtrate should be treated in ETP.

¶71

8. The unit should provide proper system for conveyance of treated effluent used in irrigation.

¶72

9. The unit should regularly calibrate its OCEMS.

¶73

10. The unit should strictly comply with the new standards notified G.S.R. 35 (E), MoEF & CC, January 14, 2016 for sugar industry such as notified standards for effluent disposal, waste water conservation and pollution control management.”

¶74

From the above, it is seen that apart from other violations, the unit

¶75

is causing serious water pollution. It has provided bypass drain at the inlet which is a serious offence under the Water Act. The parameters of the effluents are beyond prescribed norms. ETP should be stabilized prior to the commencement of crushing operations. Disposing effluents in to the drain is against consent conditions. Untreated / raw effluents are stored in two lagoons, against consent conditions. Ground water abstraction is illegal.

¶76

Thus, the stand of the appellant that compensation has been assessed without any basis cannot be accepted. The appeal has to be dismissed.

¶77

Apart from the above, we find it necessary to direct the State PCB to take further coercive measures against the appellant unit in the light of

¶78

¶79

the violations found, including closure till compliance and prosecution and compensation for the past violations following due process of law. Assessment of compensation should be based on the law laid down interalia in Sterlite (2013) 4 SCC 575, MC Mehta (1987) 1 SCC 395 and Goel Ganga (2018) 18 SCC 257, considering the financial capacity of the unit, nature and extent of violations and deterrent element.

¶80

The Appeal is dismissed with above directions.

¶81

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶82

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶83

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶84

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶85

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶86

March 25, 2022 Appeal No. 28/2020 DV

¶87

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District Badaun Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Shekhupur District Badaun Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gregorio Judy Fernandes Alias Bruno Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

M/S Manisha Construction Co. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Ramiro Mascarenhas vs State of Goa

Ankush Arora vs Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee

Ramakant Kourav vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through Secretary

Ramakant Kourav S/O Rudrabhansingh Kaurav vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Private Limited through Director Kishan Modi Son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Modi vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Tradition and Promotion of National Awareness (Chetna) vs National Capital Territory of Delhi

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Puranpur District- Pilibhit Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Gajraula Hasanpur Amroha Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board