Dismissed

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

NGT25 Mar 2022Appeal No. 29/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an environmental compensation order of Rs. 16 lakhs levied by U.P. PCB for water pollution violations. The Tribunal found the unit was operating without valid consent, bypassing effluent treatment, and polluting groundwater, confirming the necessity of the penalty.

What did the court decide?

Consistent with environmental law, the compensation order of Rs. 16 lakhs and the violation stand upheld.

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Puranpur District… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 05

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Appeal No. 29/2020

¶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. Respondent(s)

¶11

Date of hearing: 25.03.2022

¶12

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

¶13

Appellant: Mr. Amarjeet Kumar & Mr. Tarun Khurana, Advocates

¶14

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. 16 lakhs for continued violation for 80 days from 11.12.2019 to 29.02.2020. The appeal was filed on 24.08.2020 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 concern 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 2500 TCD. During the inspection, the unit was in operation. The unit has started its cane crushing on 24.11.2021 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 26.12.2020, which violates the Water (PCP) Act, 1974 and the Air (PCP) Act, 1981 to apply Consent to Operate 90 days before expiry of consent. The unit is presently operated without consent to operate from SPCB.

¶23

3. The unit has presently two (02) bore wells to meet its fresh water requirement. Electromagnetic water meter is installed in one bore well, which was nonfunctional. As informed by the unit representative, one borewell is not in use. The unit has obtained NOC from CGWA, which was valid upto 19.03.2020. The unit has not applied for renewal of NOC.

¶24

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

¶25

1. Equalization Tank

¶26

2. Primary Clarifier

¶27

3. Aeration Tank- 1& 2

¶28

4. Secondary Clarifier

¶29

5. Multi Grade Filter,

¶30

6. Activated Carbon Filter,

¶31

7. Sludge Drying Beds and

¶32

8. Treated effluent storage lagoon-6000 m³

¶33

5. During inspection, effluent is received to ETP and ETP was in operation. Sample was collected from Equalization Tank, Aeration Tank-1 & 2, and outlet of ETP. Analysis results are presented below:

¶34

¶35

Sampling location				Par	ameters
	pH	55 (mg/L)	TDS (mg/L)	BOD (mg/L)	COD (mg/L)	0 & G (mg/L)	MISS (mg/L)	MLVSS (mg/L)
Equalization Tank	4.09	185	1918	1860	3406		-	-
Aeration Tank-1	-		-- -		.	-	1654	.1401
Aeration Tank-2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1492	1292
Outlet of ETP	7,01	16.1	665	38.2	52.6	5.12	-	-
OCEMS Value	--	30.4	-- .	22.7	113.2	--	--	--
Standards as per GSR 35(E), dated 14.01.2016.(For disposal on land)	5.5- 8.5	100	2100	100	--	10	--	--

¶36

6. The unit has installed OCEMS at the outlet of ETP and it was informed that OCEMS data is connected with UPPCB and CPCB server. During inspection, flow meter and pH Sensor in OCEMS was not working.

¶37

7. Significant variation was observed with OCEMS value and characteristics of the sample collected during inspection with respect of TSS, BOO and COD parameters. It indicates that the unit is not calibrating its OCEMS.

¶38

8. The unit has provided electromagnetic flow meter at the inlet and ultrasonic flow meter and V-Notch at the outlet. The unit has maintained log book of discharge of effluent through V-Notch. Treated effluent from the unit on 07.12.02021(as per log book) was observed as 172 litre per ton of cane crushed as against stipulated norms of 200 litre per ton of cane crushed.

¶39

9. As per Performance assessment of ETP carried out by VSI, Pune 11.01.2020, treated effluent storage capacity is 17 days as against norms of 15 days.

¶40

10. During inspection, several effluent leakages were observed in Primary Clarifier, Aeration Tank, Secondary Clarifier.

¶41

11. During inspection, flooding in Pressure Sand Filter was observed.

¶42

12. The unit has provided a bypass drain at the inlet of ETP. Effluent is partially sent to ETP for treatment and remaining is bypassed through drain. Effluent is stagnated at low lying area outside factory and overflow from low lying area leads to drain. Sample was collected from bypass drain, low lying area and final drain. Analysis results are presented below:

¶43

¶44

Sampling location			Par	ameters
	pH	Colour	SS (mg/L)	TDS (mg/L)	BOD (mg/L)	COD (mg/L)
Bypass Drain (Near Electric Poles)	4.23	-	280	1828	2685	4138
Ponding Area of Unit	4.95	150	183	1093	628	1132
Drain d/s of Unit (main road side)	4.57	150	70	1822	1162	1939

¶45

13. It is evident from the results that the unit is bypassing highly polluted effluent into drain, which may cause pollution problem in drain as well as River.

¶46

14. During inspection, it was observed that effluent drain to ETP is damaged at several place. Due to this over flow effluent is found stagnant near ETP.

¶47

15. The unit has provided separate energy meter for ETP.

¶48

16. The unit has Installed Sulphur Recovery Plant for treatment of spray pond overflow, which was found operational.

¶49

17. During inspection, it was observed that the unit has provided kacha lagoon for storage of molasses. It is informed that kacha lagoon is not in use. But, coloured effluent was observed. Sample was collected from kacha lagoon. Analysis results are presented below:

¶50

Sampling location			Parameters
	pH	SS (mg/L)	TDS (mg/L)	BOD (mg/t.)	COD (mg/L)
Kacha Lagoon of Unit	5.64	335	21,214	16,565	27,974

¶51

18. It is evident from above results that highly polluted effluent is stored in kacha lagoon, which may pollute ground water.

¶52

19. Sample of ground water is also collected to check the quality of ground water. Analysis results are presented below:

¶53

¶54

Parameter s sampling station	pH	Turbidity (NTU)	Colour (Hazen)	EC (uS/cm)	TDS (mg/l)	Total Hardness (mg/l)	Sulphate (mg/l)	Nitrate (mg/l)	COD (mg/l)	BOD (mg/l)	T. Cr. (mg/l)	Cu (mg/l)	Pb (mg/l)	Zn(mg/l)
Hand pump Near Canteen	7.0 1	6. 0	5	63 0	39 6	33 0	13 7	BDL (<2. 2	BD L (<5 )	BDL (<1.0 )	BDL (<0.05 )	0.0 1	BDL (<0.05 )	0.3 4
BIS drinking water standards as per IS 10500:	6.5- 8.5	1	5	--	50 0	20 0	20 0	45	--	--	0.05	0.0 5	0.01	5.0

¶55

20. The unit has 03 boilers with capacity 2X20 TPH and 1X30 TPH using bagasse as fuel. Emissions from Boiler with capacity 20 TPH is emitted through common stack of height 30 m. Similarly, emission from boiler with 30 TPH is emitted through stack of height 30 m. Monitoring platform in both stacks was not as per CPCB guidelines.

¶56

Recommendations:

¶57

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

¶58

2. The unit should install electromagnetic flow meter in both the borewell and maintain proper log book of fresh water consumption.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

5. The unit should properly operate Its ETP. The unit should ensure operation of all units of ETP system.

¶62

6. The unit should repair leakage of effluent from Clarifiers and Aeration Tank.

¶63

7. The unit should dismantle kacha lagoon. Highly polluted effluent should be removed and treated in ETP before dismantling of kacha lagoon.

¶64

8. The unit should provide proper stack monitoring facilities as per CPCB guidelines.

¶65

9. The unit should restrict treated effluent storage capacity < 15 days effluent generation.

¶66

10. The unit should repair & maintain its OCEMS and ensure its regular calibration.

¶67

¶68

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

¶69

From the above, it is seen that apart from other violations, the unit 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. Highly polluted effluents are being discharged in kacha lagoon polluting the groundwater. ETP should be stabilized prior to the commencement of crushing operations. Disposing effluents in to the drain is in violation of consent conditions. Ground water abstraction is illegal. Storing molasses bearing waste water in kacha pond poses threat of ground water contamination and degradation of soil.

¶70

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

¶71

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 the violations found, including closure till compliance, 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.

¶72

The Appeal is dismissed with above directions.

¶73

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶78

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶79

March 25, 2022 Appeal No. 29/2020 DV

¶80

M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Puranpur District- Pilibhit 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. Puranpur District- Pilibhit 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. Shekhupur District Badaun 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