Partly allowed

Sri Kishore Kumar v. Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

NGT1 Jul 2022IA No. 29/2019 in Original Application No. 27/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal confirmed a Joint Committee report finding violations of CRZ norms by fish meal units in Karnataka, ordered payment of environmental compensation, accepted partial demolition claims, and directed action by authorities on groundwater extraction and unorganized industries.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 29,06,250 ordered for M/s Yashaswi and Rs. 5,27,500 for M/s Hindustan Marine. Partial dismissal of appeal regarding demolition of temporary structures. KSCZMA and KSPCB directed to

Sri Kishore Kumar vs Union of India Ministry of… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No.2 to 4:-

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Original Application No. 27 of 2019 (SZ) &
I.A. No.29 of 2019 (SZ)
With
Appeal No. 05 of 2020 (SZ)
With
Original Application No.254 of 2020 &
I.A. No.124 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kishore Kumar and Another.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
MoEF&CC & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
WITH
M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India
MoEF&CC & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Sugandhi Shekar
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India
MoEF&CC & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ):
For Applicant(s): None.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R3, R4.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2, R5.
Mr. M.V.V. Ramana for R10.
Mr. T.K. Bhaskar for R11.
Mr. Madhuvaneshwaran represented
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R13.

¶6

Page 1 of 87

¶7

Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ): For Appellant(s):

¶8

Mr. T.K. Bhaskar.

¶9

For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1. Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R2, R3. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R4. Mr. K.N. Praveen Kumar for R5 to R8.

¶10

O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ): For Applicant(s):

¶11

Mr. K.N. Praveen Kumar.

¶12

For Respondent(s): Mrs. M. Sumathi for R1. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2 to R5, R9 to R14, R16. Mr. Madhuvaneshwaran represented Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R6, R7. Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R8. Mr. Prasanna Shetty and Mr. A. Prabath for R18 to R20. Mr. M.V.V. Ramana for R21. Mr. T.K. Bhaskar for R22.

¶13

Judgment Pronounced on: 01^st July 2022.

¶14

CORAM :

¶15

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶16

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] and the appeal [Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ)] are disposed of with directions vide separate Common Judgment.

¶19

Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶20

Sd/Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM

¶21

Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶22

O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ) O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ), 01^st July 2022. Mn.

Page 2 of 87

Item No.2 to 4:-

Court No.1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶27

(Through Video Conference)

¶28

Original Application No. 27 of 2019 (SZ) & I.A. No.29 of 2019 (SZ)

¶29

With

¶30

Appeal No. 05 of 2020 (SZ) With

¶31

Original Application No.254 of 2020 & I.A. No.124 of 2020 (SZ)

¶32

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶33

1) Kishore Kumar Aged about 41 years S/o. Sajeev Mendon No.9-215, Srikrishna Mudlagudde Udhyavara, Pithrodi, Udupi, Karnataka – 574 118.

¶34

2) Harish Thingalaya Aged about 49 years S/o. Chara Puthran No.12-44A, Srinivasa Pithrodi Udupi Udhyavara, Karnataka – 574 118.

¶35

...Applicant(s)

¶36

Versus

¶37

1) Union of India Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change Represented by its Secretary Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶38

2) State of Karnataka Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government Forest, Biology and Environment Department. M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 5460 001. Karnataka State.

¶39

3) The Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA)

¶40

Represented by its Member Secretary Having its office at M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001. Karnataka State.

¶41

Page 3 of 87

¶42

4) The Regional Director (Environment) Forest, Environment & Ecology Department, First Floor, „C‟ Block, Rajathadri Manipala, Udupi District – 576 104. Karnataka State.

¶43

5) The Deputy Commissioner Udupi District, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶44

6) The Chief Executive Officer Udupi Zilla Panchayat, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶45

7) The Chief Executive Officer Udupi Taluk Panchayath Udupi District, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶46

8) The Grama Panchayath Represented by its P.D.O. Udhyavara, Udupi Taluk and District, Udhyavara, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶47

9) The Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (MESCOM) Represented by its Chief Executive Engineer Udupi – 574 118 Karnataka State.

¶48

10)M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries Represented by its Authorized Officer, Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi District – 574 118, Karnataka State.

¶49

11)M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company Represented by its Managing Partner – Sadhu Salian, Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi District – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶50

12)M/s. Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company Represented by its Managing Partner – Mahesh U Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶51

13)Karnataka Pollution Control Board Parisara Bhavan #49, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001. Karnataka State.

...Respondent(s)

Page 4 of 87

WITH

M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company A registered Partnership Firm Having its place of business at No.9-184 B Post: Pithrody, Udyavara Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 574 118. Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Sadhu Salian ... Appellant(s) Versus 1) Union of India Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 2) The Karnataka State Coastal Zone Managing Authority (KSCZMA) Having its office at M.S. Building Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 1 Represented by its Member Secretary 3) Regional Director (Environment) 1^st Floor, C Block, Rajathadri, Manipal, Udupi District. 4) State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary to Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, MS Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 1.

¶56

5) Pushparaj Aged about 45 years S/o. R P Kotian “Dhanraj” Pithrodi, Udyavara Village, Udupi – 574 118.

¶57

6) Rathnakar Mendon Aged about 55 years S/o. U. Somanatha Kotyan Pithrodi, Udyavara Village Udupi – 574 118.

¶58

7) Diwakar Bolje Aged about 42 years S/o. Vittala Poojary Residing at “Anchon Nivas” Bolje, Udyavara Village Udupi – 574 118.

¶59

Page 5 of 87

¶60

8) Udaya Kunder

¶61

Aged about 42 years S/o. Deju Suvarna Pithrodi, Udyavara Village Udupi – 574 118.

¶62

...Respondent(s)

¶63

WITH Sugandhi Shekar Aged 53 years W/o. Shekar Ex-President (2015 – 2020) Udhyavara Grama Panchayat Residing at Gurudarshan Pithrodi Post, Udhyavara Village Udupi Taluk and District, Karnataka – 574 118. ...Applicant(s) Versus 1) Union of India Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶64

2) State of Karnataka Represented by the Principal Chief Secretary To Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶65

3) The Principal Secretary State of Karnataka Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department MS Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶66

4) The Principal Secretary State of Karnataka Revenue Department MS Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶67

5) The Principal Secretary State of Karnataka Urban Development Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶68

6) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Parisara Bhavan, #49, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶69

Page 6 of 87

¶70

7) Environment Officer Regional Office, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Parisara Bhavana, Shivalli Industrial Area Manipal, Udupi District – 576 104.

¶71

8) The Regional Director (Environment) Forest Environment & Ecology Department First Floor, „C‟ Block, Rajathadri Manipala, Udupi District – 5765 104.

¶72

9) Joint Director District Industrial Zone Shivalli Industrial Area Manipal, Udupi District – 576 104.

¶73

10)Assistant Director Office of Assistant Director for Industries Industry and Boiler Department Udupi, Parisara Bhavana Plot Number 36 C, Shivalli Industrial Area, Manipal, Udupi District – 576 104.

¶74

11)The Deputy Commissioner Udupi District, Udupi – 574 18. Karnataka State.

¶75

12)The Commissioner City Development Authority Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶76

13)Tahsildar Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 574 118. 14)The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Udupi Rajathadri, Manipal – 576 104.

¶77

15)The President Zilla Panchayath Udupi Rajathadri, Manipal – 576 104.

¶78

16)The Chief Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Udupi – 576 101.

¶79

Page 7 of 87

¶80

17)The Grama Panchayath

¶81

Represented by its P.D.O. Udhyavara, Udupi Taluk and District, Udhyavara, Udupi – 574 118. Karnataka State.

¶82

18)HariyappaKotian

¶83

S/o. Raju Kotian Aged about 67 years Residing at Karthik Kidiyoor Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 576 101.

¶84

19)Ushalatha Mohan W/o. HariayappaKotian Aged about 59 years Residing at Karthik, Kidiyoor Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 576 101.

¶85

20)Baby S Mendon W/o. Sudhakar Mendon Aged about 55 years, Residing at Sri Ambika Ambalpady Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 576 101.

¶86

21)M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries Represented by its Authorized Officer, Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi District – 574 118.

¶87

22)M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company Represented by its Managing Partner – Sadhu Salian, Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi District – 574 118.

¶88

23)M/s. Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company Represented by its Managing Partner – Mahesh U Pithrodi Post, Udyavara, Udupi – 574 118.

¶89

...Respondent(s)

¶90

O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ):

¶91

For Applicant(s): For Respondent(s):

¶92

None.

¶93

Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1. Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R3, R4. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R2, R5. Mr. M.V.V. Ramana for R10. Mr. T.K. Bhaskar for R11. Mr. Madhuvaneshwaran represented Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R13.

¶94

Page 8 of 87

¶95

Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ):

¶96

For Appellant(s): Mr. T.K. Bhaskar. For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1. Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R2, R3. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R4. Mr. K.N. Praveen Kumar for R5 to R8.

¶97

O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ): For Applicant(s): Mr. K.N. Praveen Kumar.

¶98

¶99

Judgment Reserved on: 05^th April 2022. Judgment Pronounced on: 01^st July 2022.

¶100

CORAM :

¶101

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶102

Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No

¶103

Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶104

COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member O.A. No.27 of 2019(SZ)

¶105

1. The above application was filed by two residents of Udyavara Village, Pithrodi, Udupi Taluk of Karnataka State alleging pollution being caused on account of the operation of Respondents No.10 to 12 viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries, M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company

¶106

Page 9 of 87

¶107

and M/s. Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company respectively in violation of the conditions imposed and environmental laws.

¶108

2. It is alleged in the application that Udyavara Village of Udupi District is situated in coastal area of Karnataka State. The coastal zone in Karnataka stretches for 320 Km in three districts viz., Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and North Canara districts, out of which, 98 Km stretches in Udupi District. Udyavara village is situated on the banks of Udyavara River also known as „Pampanashini River‟ which is about 45 Kms long and flows through Karkala and finally join the Arabian Sea. The Central Government with a view to ensure protection of coastal stretches and welfare of the fishermen community in those areas, published Coastal Regulation Zone Notification ( hereinafter referred to as “CRZ Notification” ) 1991 which was later superseded by CRZ Notification, 2011. As per the CRZ Notification, 2011, zones have been classified as CRZ – I to CRZ – IV and the ecologically sensitive areas have been classified as CRZ – I.

¶109

3. According to the applicant, Udyavara Village of Udupi District has been declared and classified as CRZ – I and certain activities are prohibited under the CRZ Notification in the CRZ area which are detailed in Para (3) of the said Notification. The said Notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change ( hereinafter referred to as “MoEF&CC” ) invoking the power under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Respondents No.10 to 12 were alleged to have been conducting their units illegally in a dangerous manner to the life and living of the applicants and the people living in that locality namely, Udyavara, Anagudde, Kote, Katapady, Manipura, Kuthpady and Kadekar Villages. They are operating the units called fish meal and oil company in their villages where such units/industries are strictly prohibited under the CRZ Notification, 2011. They are running the units without obtaining license or No Objection Certificate from the competent authority.

¶110

4. It is further alleged in the application that the official respondents are illegally accommodating these units to carry out their prohibited activities without taking any action. They obtained information from the 8^th Respondent – Grama Panchayat, Udyavara under the Right to

¶111

Page 10 of 87

¶112

Information Act, on 13.01.2012 stating that the license issued to the 11^th Respondent had been cancelled, evidenced by Annexure – A4. Further, information under the Right to Information Act provided by the 8^th Respondent dated 28.09.2017 revealed that the panchayat had not issued any No Objection Certificate for conversion of agricultural lands to industrial purpose in favour of the 11^th Respondent – M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, evidenced by Annexure – A5. The 8^th Respondent also confirmed that the 11^th Respondent had not obtained any license for the subsequent years i.e. 2011-12 to 2016-17 as revealed from the six separate information obtained under the Right to Information Act on 19.10.2017, evidenced by Annexure – A6 (Series). In the year 2010, the concerned authority viz., the Regional Director, Environment, Forest and Ecology Department, Manipal, Udupi District had issued a letter dated 28.10.2010 to the 8^th Respondent not to issue any license or permission to such prohibited industries. The Local Tahsildar had later reported that Respondents No.10 to 12 were discharging industrial effluents from the fish meal unit directly into the Udyavara River (Papanashini River) and pointed out its serious impact and caused by explaining the seriousness by letter of direction dated 23.05.2011 to the 8^th Respondent seeking them to take appropriate action and the letter issued by the Regional Director and the Chief Executive Officer, Udupi Zila Panchayat to the 8^th Respondent was produced as Annexure – A7 & A8 respectively. Respondents No.10 to 12 were illegally discharging their industrial effluents from their fish meal unit into the Udyavara River causing damage to the environment. They did not have any proper pollution control mechanism to control air pollution and people in that locality were suffering due to foul smell emanating from the units. The trucks carrying the fish did not have proper cover to stop the spilling of fish blood on the roads and all the people in that locality were seriously affected by the water pollution and suffering from skin diseases and respiratory problems. Lot of fishes died on account of such activity which was published in local Kannada Daily newspaper viz. Vijay Karnataka and one such publication was produced as Annexure – A9. Though repeated representations were made to the authorities, no action was taken and they had also produced certain photographs showing the

¶113

Page 11 of 87

¶114

illegal activities of the Respondents No.10 to 12, evidenced by Annexure – A10. They also made complaint to the Legal Services Committee of Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and the Legal Services Committee was pleased to respond to the show cause notice and reportedly issued a letter vide Letter No. KCLSC No 20 Misc 2017 dated 27.02.2017 and spot inspection was conducted in the presence of Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority, Udupi District on 10.03.2017. The 4^th Respondent/Regional Director - Environment, Forest and Ecology Department, Manipal also submitted a report explaining the illegalities in nutshell on 17.04.2017 along with photographs and the said inspection report dated 17.04.2017 conducted by the 4^th Respondent was produced as Annexure – A11. Even, they extended its electricity connection up to 1500 KV from the 3^rd Respondent. The 8^th Respondent – Gram Panchayat, Udyavara had filed a complaint to the police on 17.10.2017, evidenced by Annexure – A12.

¶115

5. Since no action was taken by the authorities in respect of illegalities of the project against Respondents No.10 to 12, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing this application seeking the following reliefs:-

¶116

“(i) Direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 & 13 to take all necessary

¶117

actions for the immediate closure of the illegal industries run by Respondent Nos.10 to 12 in Udyavara Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, Karnataka State i.e. in the prohibited CRZ – I area, forthwith, in accordance with law.

¶118

(ii) Direct the Respondent No.s10 to 12 to pay the compensation

¶119

to all the victims who are being suffered due to illegalities committed by them

¶120

(iii) Impose heavy penalties on the Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 & 13 for not performing the statutory duty and for allowing the Respondent Nos.10 to 12 to continue to run the industries in prohibited area, at the cost of lives of villages and the applicants herein

¶121

(iv) Pass such any other or further order as this Hon‟ble Tribunal

¶122

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶123

6. The 6^th Respondent filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable. The allegation that they have not taken any action is not correct. They also denied the allegation that they were illegally accommodating the activities of the Respondents No.10 to 12 to carry out the alleged prohibited industry with closed eyes and not taking any action. They are not liable for any of the reliefs claimed. The applicants and other villagers were making repeated representations, agitations,

¶124

Page 12 of 87

¶125

conducting protests, facing lati-charge of the police, getting treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained but denying the allegation that none of the representations or request were considered effectively and fruitfully by this respondent. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and dismissal of the application.

¶126

7. The 7^th Respondent filed counter more or less reiterated the contentions raised by the 6^th Respondent in their counter and prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶127

8. The 8^th Respondent filed counter more or less reiterated the contentions raised by the Respondents No.6 & 7. They contended that the 11^th Respondent was conducting the unit without obtaining renewed license from the competent authority and using the fake license, they were running the industry in the prohibited area and the 11^th Respondent had extended its electricity connection upto 1500 KV from the office of the 9^th Respondent and the 8^th Respondent had filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 17.10.2017, evidenced by Annexure – A12 produced along with the counter. The allegations that they were colluding with the Respondents No.10 to 12 and they were not taking action against them were not correct. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶128

9. The 10^th Respondent filed preliminary objection to the application denying the allegation that their activities situated in CRZ – I Zone, but in fact the unit of the 10^th Respondent is located in CRZ – II Zone where the activity is permitted and they have produced the copy of the document showing the geographical location of the industry, evidenced by Annexure R10 (1). The 3^rd Respondent classified the area where the industry of the 10^th Respondent as CRZ – II Zone and the copy of the letter was produced as Annexure R10 (2). They were not discharging any untreated effluents as alleged in the application, as they were adopting the ZLD System and the waste water was treated and recycled in the industries itself by drastically reducing the requirement of fresh water and they produced the features of the treatment plant as Annexure R10 (3). They obtained necessary permission from the 13^th Respondent for

¶129

Page 13 of 87

¶130

running the industries with regard to the air and water pollution, evidenced by Annexure – R10 (4). They denied the allegation that they were illegally conducting the industry. They obtained all necessary permission from the authorities and they were running the unit for more than twenty years and operate in the same premises without any complaint. The 2^nd Respondent issued notice stating that the industry of the 10^th Respondent is located in CRZ – I Zone and the appeal filed before this Tribunal producing all relevant documents, was disposed of with observation that the 10^th Respondent could give reply to the notice with the relevant documents and the copy of the order passed by this Tribunal was produced as Annexure R10 (5). Subsequently, the 10^th Respondent filed reply before the authority evidenced by Annexure R10 (6) and the complaint was against the 11^th Respondent and it was not related to the 10^th Respondent. They cannot be held responsible for any pollution caused to the Udyavara River and death of fishes in the river as projected in the newspaper report produced by the applicant. The application was filed on the premise that the industry of the 10^th Respondent is situated within the CRZ – I area but in fact, it was situated in CRZ – II area. They reserve their right to file a detailed reply, if any, required.

¶131

10. The 11^th Respondent filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable and they denied the allegation of conducting their industry in violation of the environmental laws and in illegal manner. They also denied the allegation that they were conducting the unit in the prohibited zone under the CRZ Notification, 2011. They denied the allegation that on account of the activities of the 11^th Respondent, serious threat had been caused to the human beings, birds and marine habitats both flora and fauna. They are conducting the industry obtaining all necessary permission and license from the authorities. Since they are properly running the unit adopting all pollution control mechanism, there is no question of compensation payable by them arises. The 8^th Respondent is not the authority to issue any trade license to the industry and as such, there is no question to cancel the license issued. They obtained necessary land conversion permission of the land in Sy.No.110/4B, 110/15, 110/9C2B, 110/5B, 110/9C2B2, 110/4A, 110/15 and 110/9C2B1-P1 for

¶132

Page 14 of 87

¶133

industrial purpose from Tahsildar, Udupi. The Committee report also showed that out of a total of 2.69 Acres, they had obtained land conversion for 2.69 Acres for industrial purpose. They denied the allegation that they were directly discharging the trade effluents into the river. They obtained valid Consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also obtained authorization for dealing hazardous substances under the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 which was valid upto 30.06.2021. Subsequently, the same was renewed upto 08.09.2024 and the renewed Hazardous Waste Authorization was produced as Annexure – A along with the counter. They also sent a letter dated 21.05.2020 seeking NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority ("KGWA") for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes but the KGWA have not sent any reply so far and the letter given was produced as Annexure – B. The 11^th Respondent had sought for information under the Right to Information Act by application dated 18.09.2020 whereby the 11^th Respondent was informed by the Public Information Officer that District Ground Water Office, Ground Water Directorate, Udupi that the Udupi District Ground Water Office which was functional from 04.05.2017 that it has till date not given permission to any industry to use water from the well for any commercial purpose. Respecting the observations made by the Joint Committee constituted by the Tribunal, they sought for NOC from the KGWA vide letter dated 21.05.2020 and the letter so given was produced as Annexure – D. Again, by letter dated 30.06.2021, they sought for clarification from the KGWA, evidenced by Annexure – E, to which also no reply has been received. They have got proper pollution control mechanism and they are also having their own Effluent Treatment Plant to treat the effluent. They are using closed vans for transport of fish, evidenced by Annexure – G (Series), Photographs. So, there is no possibility of spilling of waste water coming from the fish carrying vehicles causing damage to the environment as alleged. They have not committed any illegality and they are strictly complying with the environmental laws and they are not liable for any of the reliefs claimed in the application. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶134

Page 15 of 87

¶135

Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ)

¶136

11. The above appeal was filed M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company (Respondent No.11 in O.A. No.27/2019 & Respondent No.22 in O.A. No.254/2020) against the notice issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 dated 05.03.2018 directing the appellant to demolish the portion of the building said to have been encroached into the CRZ area for impermissible purpose under the CRZ Notification, 2011, on the ground that earlier, a show cause notice was issued on the basis of the alleged inspection observing that M/s. Unity fish meal and oil company had encroached into the CRZ – I area and built up the building without getting any prior permission and also on the ground that that it is not permissible activity in CRZ – I area. The appellant filed objections to the show cause notice stating that they have not made any construction, but ignoring this fact and without considering the objections raised, the authorities passed an order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru as W.P. 14808 of 2018 and the same was disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka vide Order dated 04.11.2019 as follows:-

¶137

“In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off as not

¶138

maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal as contemplated supra within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶139

Interim order granted earlier will enure to the benefit of the

¶140

petitioner for a period of three months from today.”

¶141

12. It is also mentioned in the appeal memorandum that they have filed I.A. No.01 of 2020 and 02 of 2020 in the above Writ Petition seeking extension of stay, as certified copy has not been obtained and the same was granted by the Hon‟ble High Court by Order dated 04.02.2020, extending the time by another fifteen days and as such, the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. Though there was no application filed for extension of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, this Tribunal admitted the appeal, leaving open the question of limitation to be decided if raised by other side and also granted stay of execution of the impugned

¶142

Page 16 of 87

¶143

order in No.FEE/187/CRZ/2017 dated 15.03.2018 passed by the 2^nd Respondent/SCZMA - Karnataka until further orders.

¶144

13. Originally, this Tribunal had dispensed with notice to Respondents No.5 to 8 and notice was ordered only to Respondents No.2 & 3 alone. Thereafter, I.A. No.83 of 2020 (SZ) in Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) was filed by Respondents No.5 to 8 herein on the ground that they were residents of the locality and they filed Writ Petitions before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka as W.P. Nos.47781 to 47784 of 2017 (GM-POL) alleging some irregularities being committed by the three fish meal units including the appellant herein doing the prohibited activity in CRZ area and the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka vide Order dated 10.01.2018 disposed of the above said writ petitions.

¶145

14. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein had challenged the above said orders before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by filing Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10276 – 10279 of 2018 and the Hon‟ble Apex Court had dismissed the special leave petitions, evidenced by Annexure – R2 produced along with the impleading application viz., I.A. No.83 of 2020 (SZ) in Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ).

¶146

15. The above said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka on the basis of the undertaking given by the official respondents that they would take appropriate action under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Since, no action was taken, the applicant in the interlocutory application herein filed Writ Petition as W.P. No.14808 of 2018 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka and that was also disposed of on 04.11.2019 and the fish meal units got themselves impleaded in those writ petitions as Respondents No.5 to 8. Order of impleading these parties was challenged by the appellant herein by filing Writ Appeal as W.A. No.995 of 2019 and that was also dismissed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka upholding the impleadment by Judgment dated 12.06.2019, evidenced by Annexure – R3 & R4 respectively. Thereafter, some of the villagers have filed an Original

¶147

Page 17 of 87

¶148

Application No.27 of 2019 (SZ) and that prompted them to file this application before this Tribunal.

¶149

16. Since all these persons were already impleaded as Respondents No.5 to 8 in the appeal memorandum, by Order dated 15.03.2021, this Tribunal had allowed them to participate in the proceedings.

¶150

O.A. No.254 of 2020(SZ)

¶151

17. The above application was filed by one Sugandhi Shekar, a resident of Udyavara Village in Udupi District alleging that pollution is being caused on account of the operation of Respondents No.21 to 23 who are arrayed as Respondents No.10 to 12 in O.A. No.27 of 2019 (SZ).

¶152

18. The applicant herein also more or less reiterated the allegation of illegal operation of these units and conducting prohibited activity in CRZ – I area where such activities are not permissible. On account of illegal activities of the above units, groundwater in that area has been severely polluted.

¶153

19. It is further alleged in the application that the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mudabettu on 15.02.2020, in his report dated 22.01.2020 submitted to the District Health Officer mentioned that the water in the wells in and around the fish meal units are contaminated and they are not fit for drinking, evidenced by Annexure – A12 produced along with the application. They also mentioned about the pendency of the Original Application No.27 of 2019 (SZ) filed by other two persons in respect of the same issued before this Tribunal. They were obtained lands from the poor agriculturists and seeking permission for conversion and the same is being granted, evidenced by Annexure – A12 to A15 produced along with the Original Application. Though repeated representations have been made to the 17^th Respondent/Gram Panchayat, no action has been taken. The Gram Panchayat had even passed resolution prohibiting the issuance of NOC for such industrial purpose, evidenced by Annexure – A16 to A22 produced along with the application.

¶154

Page 18 of 87

¶155

20. All these periodical decisions were communicated by the 17^th Respondent to the 14^th Respondent and in turn, the 14^th Respondent passed an order cancelling the same in conformity with the decision on 30.09.2019, evidenced by Annexure – A23 produced along with the application. Certain Writ Petitions were filed as W.P. No.6191 of 2020 and W.P. No.8755 of 2020 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka and though interim stay was granted as per order dated 31.01.2020 and 03.08.2020, but the period of licence was over. Since the term of applicants in Gram Panchayat was over and there is declaration made for fresh elections to the local bodies in the State of Karnataka, writ petitions were dismissed on the technical ground on 17.11.2020 that the applicant has no locus to file petition for Gram Panchayat. They are running the fish mills in the name of “Fish Freezing Units” or “SURMI” and the waste bones are supplied to ETP wherein powder, crude oil etc. are being manufactured and the aqua prone culture is being adopted. Further, they were discharging untreated industrial effluents into the water body. Zilla Panchayat had issued an order on the representation made by Order dated 17.10.2018 and further Order dated 30.01.2020 which were produced as Annexure – A27 & A28 respectively. Though the same was challenged before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, it was dismissed on technical ground that the applicant cannot represent the Gram Panchayat.

¶156

21. Further, it was alleged in the application that a brilliant boy in that locality died due to new disease on account of the bacteria viz., „Neuro MelioDosis‟ and it was caused on account of the illegal operation of the fish meal units in that area.

¶157

22. Since no actions were taken by the authorities, the applicant filed this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

¶158

“(i) Direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 to 17 to take possible action under Law to protect the environment, ecology in Udhyavara Village of Udupi Taluk and further direct the to take action under law to prevent and prohibit the conversions of agricultural lands into industrial lands in the village which are detrimental to environment and ecology and in accordance with the need of villagers and more particularly as periodically and lawfully resolved by the Respondent No. 17 Village Panchayath.

¶159

Page 19 of 87

¶160

(ii) To hold that the conversion process being made from agricultural lands into industrial lands by the respondents 5, 11 to 15 in favour of respondent 18 to 20 as per the order passed by respondent no 15 dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure-A-8) is illegal and consequently direct the said respondent authorities desist from granting any further industrial conversions which create pollution and are detrimental to environment and ecology of the village and hazardous to life and liberty of people therein.

¶161

(iii) Direct the respondents 2, 5, 6 to 17 to immediately verify, assess and investigate and Consequently take all necessary steps for the immediate stoppage/closure of such industrial activities which are illegal, violative and the detrimental to the environment and ecology of the village and which create pollution in Udhyavara Village Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, Karnataka State forthwith in accordance with law including of respondents 18 to 23

¶162

(iv) Impose heavy penalties on the Respondents for not performing the statutory duty in preventing and for allowing the industries to in prohibited area who cause serious pollution and environment and ecology problems that too at the cost of lives of villagers and the Applicant herein.

¶163

(v) Direct the respondent 2 to 17 to all necessary steps to prevent pollution and protect the environment, ecology in Udhyavara Village Udupi Taluk, Udupi District and Karnataka State Pollution in accordance with law.”

¶164

23. Respondents No.8 & 10 filed counter affidavit contending that the 8^th Respondent vide the District Coastal Zone Management Committee (DCZMC), Udupi has recommended to the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) to take appropriate action against the Respondents No.21 to 23 for violating the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011. They have produced the proceedings of the DCZMC, Udupi dated 07.04.2017 (against Respondents No. 21 and 22) as Annexure - A and the proceedings dated 25.01.2018 (against Respondent No. 23) as Annexure - B along with the counter. The KSCZMA has issued a Section 5 notice under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against Respondents No.21 to 23, evidenced by Annexure C, D and E respectively produced along with the counter. The 8^th Respondent has already initiated appropriate action under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, 2011 as follows:

¶165

“i. The land area from High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as the HTL) to 500 mts on the landward side along the sea front.

¶166

ii. CRZ shall apply to the land area between HTL to 100 mts or width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side along the tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance upto which development along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance upto which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (ppt) measured during the driest period of the year and distance upto which tidal effects are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated accordingly in the Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter referred to as the CZMPs).

¶167

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-paragraph the expression tidal influenced water bodies mean the water bodies influenced by tidal effects from sea,

¶168

Page 20 of 87

¶169

in the bays, estuaries, rivers, creeks, backwaters, lagoons, ponds connected to the sea or creeks and the like.

¶170

iii. Land area between HTL and Low Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as the LTL) which will be termed as the intertidal zone.

¶171

iv. The water and the bed area between the LTL to the territorial water limit (12 Nm) in case of sea and the water and the bed area between LTL at the bank to the LTL on the opposite side of the bank, of tidal influenced water bodies. And, it is categorized in to CRZ I to IV Zones and Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area (CVCA). The degree of regulation varies in different zones.”

¶172

24. They have given the details of activities of Respondents No.21 to 23 in CRZ Zone as follows:-

¶173

M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries (Respondent No. 21):

¶174

Total area: 8632.725 sq.mtrs •Within CRZ II: 1445 sq.mtrs

¶175

Outside CRZ: 7187.725 sq.mtrs

¶176

M/s. Yashashwi Fish Meal and Oil Company (Respondent No. 22):

¶177

Total Area: 22105.996 sq.mtrs

¶178

•Within CRZ I: 1550.202 sq.mtrs

¶179

Within CRZ II: 9778.974 sq.mtrs

¶180

•Within CRZ IV: 296.795 sq.mtrs

¶181

Outside CRZ: 10480.025 sq.mtrs

¶182

M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company (Respondent No. 23):

¶183

Total Area: 4060.15 sq.mtrs

¶184

•Within CRZ II: 822.65 sq.mtrs

¶185

•Outside CRZ: 3237.5 sq.mtrs

¶186

25. It is further contended that although the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 hasprohibited certain activities within CRZ area and has put certain norms for the regulation of activities permissible thereunder, thesaid notification is not under implementation as of now. The KSCZMA has issued notice to Respondents No.21 to 23 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to remove the structures falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ. Respondent No. 22 has obtained stay from this Tribunal by filing Appeal No.05/2020 and as regardsthe Respondents No.21 and 23, the status is pending for action under Section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The 8^th Respondent has not received any complaint or application regarding laying of pipelines for operation of any other fish meal units from that area. The provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 prohibit the establishment of new fish meal units and expansion of existing fish meal units in CRZarea and adequate action will be taken, in case of complaints or any such illegal activities were brought to their notice. It was submitted that

¶187

Page 21 of 87

¶188

Aquaculture is not being adopted in that area. The allegation that discharge of untreated effluents results in depletion of dissolved oxygen and cause death of fishes and other marine life etc. are not correct, as it is being regularly monitored by the State Pollution Control Board. The Department of Fisheries is collecting Fishery statistics by statistical method by taking into consideration of fish catches in harbours and jetties and preparing the data. An exclusive study can be taken up by CMFRI, and only then the number of endangered/extinct fish and other marine species of the River stretch can be evaluated. The allegation that they are not taking steps is not correct and hence, they denied the same. So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate orders.

¶189

26. All these cases were jointly tried by this Tribunal, as they are interconnected and on various occasions, different directions have been issued.Reference is necessary to some of the orders.

¶190

27. Vide Order dated 11.10.2019 in O.A. No.27 of 2019 (SZ), this Tribunal before proceeding with the matter, appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) State Coastal Zone Management Authority – Karnataka, (ii) Central Pollution Control Board, (iii) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, (iv) the District Commissioner – Udupi District and (v) District Magistrate Udupi District to inspect the area in question and the industries and submit a factual report regarding the allegations made in the application and if there is any violation, action taken in this regard.

¶191

28. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and also for providing necessary logistics for this purpose.

¶192

29. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the Joint Committee has filed a report dated Nil, e-filed on 06.02.2022 which reads as follows:-

¶193

“REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED IN THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2019 FILED BY SRI. KISHORE KUMAR & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON‟BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI, AS PER ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 & 03.01.2020, REGARDING POLLUTION CAUSED BY FISH MEAL INDUSTRIES IN UDYAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA

¶194

Page 22 of 87

¶195

Preamble:

¶196

In the matter of Original Application No 27 of 2019 (SZ), Sri. Kishore Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors., the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has passed an order dated 11^th October, 2019 (Annexure 1 ) and directed that “… It appropriate to constitute a Committee consisting of the Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka, Central Pollution Control Board, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the District Commissioner, Udupi District and District Magistrate, Udupi District to inspect the area in question and the industries and submit the factual report regarding the allegation made in the application and if there is any violation action if any to be taken and if any action is taken that also should be mentioned in the report. The SPCB will be the nodal agency for compliance of co- ordination”.

¶197

The applicant Sri. Kishore Kumar & Ors have filed objections about following three fish meal industries stating theses industries are operated without valid consent for operation (CFO), violation of Coastal Regulation Zone in extending their area of operation and Udyavara is being polluted, the fish and other marine life are dying. According to the applicant, one boy also died on account of unknown decease by name Neuro Melioidosis.

¶198

1) M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶199

2) M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶200

3) M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶201

Constitution of the Committee:

¶202

In compliance to Hon‟ble NGT order, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) constituted a committee vide Office Memorandum No. PCB /SEO/NOB/COMMITTEE/NGT/OA27/2019(SZ)/ 2019-20/4770 dated 02.12.2019 consisting of the following members, the copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure 2 :

¶203

*Sl.* No	*Name & Designation*	*Details*
1	Regional Senior Environmental Officer - Mangaluru No.10B, Baikamady Industrial Area, Mangaluru-575011	Chairman
2	Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner Office, Kundapur	Member
3	Regional Director (Environment) Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority, 1^stFloor, C Block, “Rajathadri”, Manipal, Udupi - 576 104.	Member
4	Shri. G. Thirumurthy, Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate (S), Nisarga Bhawan, Thimmiah Road, 7^thD Main, Shivanagar, Bengaluru – 560 079	Member
5	Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Udupi – 576 104	Member Convene r

¶204

The Member Convener of the committee communicated the date of inspection to the Committee members for carrying out inspection on mutually agreed dates i.e. December 10 - 11, 2019 (2 days) vide letter No. PCB/RO/Udupi/2019-20/855 dated 05.12.2019. As per the said order, following officials from CPCB, KSPCB, Revenue and KSCZMA carried out the inspection and monitoring on December 10-11, 2019.

¶205

1) Mr. Ramesh D. Naik, SEO, KSPCB, Mangalore

¶206

2) Mr. Raju K. Assistant Commissioner, ACO, Kundapura,

¶207

3) Mr. Prasanna Patgar, Regional Director (Envt.), KSCZMA, Udupi

¶208

Page 23 of 87

¶209

4) Mr. G. Thirumurthy, Additional Director, CPCB, Bengaluru

¶210

5) Mrs. Vijaya Hegde, Regional Officer, KSPCB,Udupi

¶211

Following Officers from KSPCB & KSCZMA accompanied the committee for carrying out environmental sampling of River Water and industrial effluents (Raw & Treated):

¶212

1. Mr. Jayaprakash Nayak, Senior Scientific Officer, KSPCB, Mangalore

¶213

2. Mrs. Prameela, Deputy Environmental Officer, KSPCB, RO-Udupi

¶214

3. Mr. Dheeraj D. Kumar, Field Assistant, Office of the Regional Director (Environment), CRZ, Udupi

¶215

The Committee met at the Regional Office, KSPCB, Udupi and had a discussion about the case, proceeded for field inspection and environmental samplings. The industries inspected & sampling carried out during December 10-11, 2019 are:

¶216

On 10.12.2019 On 11.12.2019
1. M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil 4. M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil
Company Company
2. M/s Hindustan Marine 5. M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food – Fish
Industries cutting shed
3. Udyavara River Samplings 6. M/s Coastal Sea Food – Fish
cutting shed
7. M/s Suha Sea Food – Fish cutting
shed

¶217

The environmental samples collected by the Committee are carried to the Regional Laboratory, KSPCB, Mangalore for further analysis by Mr. Jayaprakash Nayak, Senior Scientific Officer, KSPCB, Mangalore. The environmental samples analysis report is made available to the Committee on January 13, 2020 , accordingly the committee finalized the report.

¶218

3.0 Udyavara Town and its related activity:

¶219

Udyavara is a Census Town city in district of Udupi, Karnataka has population of 11,854 as per Census India 2011. Udyavara village is having agricultural, commercial and industrial activities. Udyavara town is not having sewerage network; residential households are having individual septic and soak pit for sewage disposal, however, some of the residential households situated near to the river bank are practising insanitary latrines. Neither there is proper solid waste management system in the village. Grama Panchayat is collecting waste from door to door and transporting it to landfill site at Udupi. People are observed to practise open burning of solid waste along the river banks.

¶220

The Papanashini River generally called as Udyavara River flows in Udyavara village. The river originates in Western Ghats near Hebri at the top of Narasimha parvatha and flows from east to west and turns north to separate Udyavara and Malpe and finally joins Arabian Sea near Malpe. The map showing drains and river in Udyavara as follow:

¶221

The major type of industries located in Udyavara village is fish meal & oil companies, fish cutting industries and Fish Canning industries. The fish meal industries (M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal & Oil Company, M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, M/s Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company) are located in Pithrody, Udyavara Village, in addition, fish cutting activities also carried out in unorganized way and cutting waste and effluent are discharged in to River without any treatment.

¶222

Page 24 of 87

¶223

*Legend*	*Name of the industry*	*Latitude*	*Longitude*
1	M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal & Oil Company	13.290262	74.730639
2	M/s Hindustan Marine Industries	13.289715	74.727667
3	M/s Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company	13.290386	74.728704

¶224

4.0 Water Quality of Papanashini (Udyavara) River:

¶225

Papanashini River (Udyavara River) flows in Udyavara and turns towards north and joins Arabian Sea at Malpe. The river water quality of Udyavara River is being monitored by KSPCB regularly.

¶226

River Water Quality Monitoring by KSPCB:

¶227

The Regional office KSPCB, Udupi is collecting river water sample at two points i.e. (i) Backside of M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company and (ii) Backside of M/s Hindusthan Marine Industries every month to assess the quality of River Water, the parameters analyzed are pH, BOD, DO and Turbidity. The KSPCB analysis results of river water quality for the period of January 2017 to October 2019 are enclosed as Annexure 3 and the consolidated water quality is tabulated below:

¶228

Consolidated Results of Rive Water Quality

¶229

*S. No.*	*Parameters*	*Unit*	*Location 1*	*Location 2*	_Standard_*
			*Range*	*Range*
1	pH	-	6.7 – 7.5	6.6 – 7.5	*6.5 – 8.5*
2	BOD	mg/L	1 - 3	1 - 3	*Max 3*
3	DO	mg/L	6.4 – 6.9	6.4 – 7.0	*Min 4*
4	Turbidity	NTU	1 - 2	1 - 3	*Max 30*

¶230

_ - Water Quality Standards for Coastal Water Marine Outfalls – SW II Where,_*

¶231

Location 1: Backside of M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company Location 2: Backside of M/s Hindusthan Marine Industries

¶232

The above table reveals that the river water quality is confirming to the prescribed standards of Environmental Parameters. The water quality is falling under the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW-II Waters - For Bathing, Conduct Water Sports, Commercial Fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls.

¶233

River Water Quality Monitoring by Committee:

¶234

The Committee collected (grab) river water samples of River Udyavara at upstream and downstream points, at five locations during December 10 - 11, 2019, the location details are:

¶235

Udyavara River Water Sampling Locations

¶236

Page 25 of 87

¶237

*Date*	*Location Details*	*Coordinates*	*Remarks*
10.12.2019	*SW1*: Backside of M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Co.	N 13.290361, E 74.731842	Low Tide
	*SW2*: Backside of M/s Hindustan Marine Industries	N 13.289049, E 74.726646	Low Tide
	*SW3*: Near Udyavara Bridge (NH 66) – Upstream	N 13.297076, E 74.745436	High Tide
11.12.2019	*SW4*: Towards East of M/s Suha Sea Food discharge Point	N 13.287714, E 74.730490	High Tide
	*SW5*:Towards West of M/s Suha Sea Food discharge Point	N 13.287701, E 74.730152	High Tide

¶238

The analysis results of Udyavara River Water samples (grab) are tabulated below: Analysis Results of Udyavara River Water Quality

¶239

*Parameters*	*Unit*	_Standards_*	*SW1*	*SW2*	*SW3*	*SW4*	*SW5*
pH	-	6.5-8.5	6.9	7.1	7	6.7	6.8
Dissolved Oxygen	mg/L	Min 4	5.5	5.1	8	7.5	7.6
BOD	mg/L	Max 3	3	2	2	3	2
Turbidity	NTU	Max 30	1	1	1	1	1
Total Dissolved Solids	mg/L	___	6910	11410	9256	10450	10200
Ammonical Nitrogen	mg/L	___	0.6	1.1	2	6.7	5.7
Total Kjeldhal	mg/L	___	2.8	2.8	4.5	16.8	14.6
*Parameters*	*Unit*	_Standards_*	*SW1*	*SW2*	*SW3*	*SW4*	*SW5*
Nitrogen
Free Ammonia	mg/L	___	0.003	0.019	0.011	0.095	0.088
Conductivity	µ ohms/Cm	___	13540	21610	_17998 _	19870	18630
Nitrate	mg/L	___	1.3	1.6	1.5	8.4	6.5
Fecal Coliform	MPN	100/100ml	11	<2	8	___	___
Total Coliform	MPN	___	70	2	30	___	___

¶240

_ - Water Quality Standards for Coastal Water Marine Outfalls – SW II_*

¶241

Where,

¶242

SW1 : Backside of M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Co., SW2 : Backside of M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, SW3 : Near Udyavara Bridge (NH 66) – Upstream

¶243

Page 26 of 87

¶244

SW4 : Towards East of M/s Suha Sea Food discharge Point, SW5 : Towards West of M/s Suha Sea Food discharge Point

¶245

The above table reveals that the river water quality is confirming to the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW-II Waters - For Bathing, Conduct Water Sports, Commercial Fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls. The Dissolved Oxygen of the River Water increase from 5.1 to 8 mg/L, the TDS increases from 6910 to 10450 mg/L, Ammonical Nitrogen increases from 0.6 to 6.7, TKN from 2.8 to 16.8 during high tide, where as there is no much change in pH, BOD. The bacteriological samples of SW1, SW2 and SW3 are analyzed at National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NITK), Surathkal.

¶246

Inspection of identified Industries & its compliances

¶247

The applicant in its application mentioned that the following respondents are operated without valid CFO, violation of Coastal Regulation Zone in extending their area of operation and Udyavara is being polluted, the fish and other marine life are dying.

¶248

*S. No.*	*Respondent*	*Name of the Industry*			*Remarks*
1	Respondent 10	M/s Hindustan Marine Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi	Indust	ries,	Operating
2	Respondent 11	M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal Company, Pithrody, Udyavara,	and Udup	Oil i	Operating
3	Respondent 12	M/s Unity Fishmeal Company, Pithrody, Udyavara,	and Udup	Oil i	Not operating

¶249

In view of above, the Committee inspected above said industries to ascertain the status of functioning of ETPs and its compliance. The Committee collected the effluent samples of Raw and Treated to assess the compliance to the discharge standards. Out of these 3 units, one unit is not in operation.

¶250

Also the committee inspected the other fish cutting units and fish canning units operating without prior consent from concerned departments in Udyavara Village to assess the environmental management of wastes generated during the process.

¶251

The names of such industries are:

¶252

*S. No.*	*Name of the Industry*	*Activity*	*Remarks*
1	M/s Suha Sea Food Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi	Fish Cutting	Operating without Consent from KSPCB
2	M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi	_Fish Cutting _	Operating without Consent from KSPCB
3	M/s Coastal Sea Food Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi	_Fish Cutting _	Operating without Consent from KSPCB

¶253

In addition to above, there are two more industries namely (i) M/s Hindustan Fish Peeling Shed and (ii) M/s Sowkar Canning Company are operated in Udyavara Village, Udupi with valid consent from KSPCB. Both the units have valid consent from KSPCB up to 30.09.2020 and 30.09.2022 respectively and ETP to treat their effluents, as informed by KSPCB. The committee could not able to inspect the same. The locations of such industries are shown below:

¶254

Page 27 of 87

¶255

Where,

¶256

*Legend*	*Name of the industry*	*Latitude*	*Longitude*
A	M/s Hindusthan Fish Peeling Shed	13.289785	74.728015
B	M/s Sowkar Canning Company	13.289171	74.729938
C	M/s Suha Sea Food	13.288052,	74.730111
D	M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food	13.288639	74.730004
E	M/s Coastal Sea Food	13.288360	74.728788

¶257

Observations of the Committee on identified industries:

¶258

The important observations of the committee with respect to operation of industries, operating status of ETP and its compliance are discussed below:

¶259

M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company

¶260

Name & Location M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company
Sy. No.110/4B, 110/15, 110/9C2B, 110/5B, 110/9C2B2,
110/4A, 110/15_and 110/9C2B1-
P1, Udyavara Village, Pithrody, Udupi
Category and Classification Large Orange
Activity & Consented Manufacturing of fishmeal & fish oil
Production Capacity
 Fish Meal – 3500 MT/ Month
 Fish oil – 250 MT/Month
Status of consent and CFO obtained under Water & Air Act is valid
validity up to 30.09.2020.
Status of H.W. Obtained authorization under Hazardous & Other
Authorization & Validity Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2016 which is valid up to
30.06.2021.
Date of Inspection 10.12.2019
Person Contacted Sri. Uday Kumar Salian, Partner.
Sri. Venu Therumal, ETP Consultant

¶261

Observations:

¶262

a) M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company has obtained necessary land conversions of Sy.No.110/4B, 110/15, 110/9C2B, 110/5B, 110/9C2B2, 110/4A, 110/15 and 110/9C2B1P1 for industrial purpose from Tahasildar, Udupi. The land conversion details are:

¶263

*Survey Number*	*Extent of* *Land (Acres)*	*Purpose of* *Conversion*	*Reference of Conversion* *Order*

¶264

Page 28 of 87

¶265

110/4B 110/15	0.56 0.20	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:857/06- 07, dated 17/04/2007
110/9C2B	0.39	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:855/06-
110/5B 110/9C2B2	0.21 ¾ 0.19		07, dated 17/04/2007
110/4A	0.49	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:800/06-
110/15	0.17		07, dated 17/04/2007
110/9C2B1-P1	0.48	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:744/06- 07, dated 17/04/2007
Total	2.69 3/4 acres

¶266

The unit has obtained land conversion for 2.69 3/4 acres land for industrial purpose.

¶267

b) The unit has obtained building license from Udyavara Gram Panchayat on 06.09.2007 vide No: U.G.P/44/2007-08. However, Grama Panchayat has cancelled the trade license issued to the industry and industry has obtained stay at Hon‟ble High Court against the said cancellation order. However, as per letter of Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR), GOK dated 24-02-2016, Grama Panchayats do not have authority to issue trade license to industries and they should not collect such license fees from industries.

¶268

c) The unit is categorized as Large Orange, was inspected on December 10, 2019, found operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, with validity up to 30.09.2020. The Consent for Establishment (CFE) was issued on 17.07.2007 and first Consent for Operation (CFO) was issued during 2008 for a period of 1.7.2008 to 30.06.2009. The details of CFE/CFO issued to the industry is tabulated below:

¶269

*Sl.* No	*Type of* *Consent*	*Issue Date & reference*	*Validity* *Period*	*Consented* *Production* *Capacity*
1	Consent For Establishment	No:57/KSPCB/RO- UDP/DEO/2007-	3 years up to 16/07/2010	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
*Sl.* No	*Type of* *Consent*	*Issue Date & reference*	*Validity* *Period*	*Consented* *Production* *Capacity*
	(CFE)	08/379, dt:17/07/2007
2	First CFO	No: KSPCB/SEO/TC/ WA/ AA/2008	01/07/2008 to 30/06/2009	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
3	CFO renewal	No:206/KSPCB/RO- UDU/EO/2009- 10/643, dt:19/08/2009	01/07/2009 to 30/06/2010	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
4	CFE Expansion	No:KSPCB/CFE/MR/0 9/10/604, dt:03/03/2010	3 Years up to 02/03/2013	ETP up gradation up to 30 KLD
5	CFO renewal	No:97/KSPCB/EO/D E O/AEO/WPC & APC/ 2010-11/481, dt: 26/08/2010	01/07/2010 to 10/10/2010	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
6	Corrigendum	No:PCB/UDP/EO/201 0 -11/1341, dt:31/01/2011	11/10/2010 to 30/06/2011	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
7	CFO renewal	No:94/KSPCB/EO/ DE O/AEO/WPC& APC/2011-12/702, dt:06/09/2011	01/07/2011 to 30/06/2012	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM

¶270

Page 29 of 87

¶271

8	CFO renewal	No:13/PCB/EO/EO/ WPC/APC/2013- 14/279, dt:25/06/2013	01/07/2012 to 30/06/2013	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
9	_CFO extension _	Reg.No:53384, dt:01/07/2013	30/09/2015	Fish Meal-1750 TPM Fish Oil-125 TPM
10	CFE Expansion	No: 76/PCB/SEO- MNG/CFExp/2013 - 14/170, dt:23/01/2014	5 years up to 22/01/2019	Fish Meal-3500TPM Fish Oil-250TPM
11	CFE Expansion	No:08/PCB/SEO- MNG/CF Exp/2014- 15/38, dt:12/05/2014	5 years up to 11/05/2019	Installation of Standby Evaporator, standby Boiler of 8 TPH Deodorizer, and 625KVA DG set
12	Corrigendu m(CFO Expansion)	No:43/PCB/EO(UDP)/ Corrigendum/SO/2014- 15/1043, dt:14/01/2015	30/09/2015	Fish Meal-3500TPM Fish Oil-250TPM
13	_CFO Renewal _	No:04/KSPCB/EO/A E O/WPC&APC/2015 - 16/374, dt:12/06/2015	01/07/2015 to 30/09/2020	Fish Meal-3500TPM Fish Oil-250TPM
14	CFO Expansion	No:W-307970, dt:29/09/2018	Up to 30/09/2020	ETP up gradation up to 350 KLD
15	CFE Expansion	CTE-314686, dt:09/09/2019	08/09/2024	ETP up gradation up to 400 KLD

¶272

The above table reveals that the unit initially started with a capacity of Fish meal: 1750 TPM & Fish Oil: 125 TPD, later obtained CFE for expansion of Fish meal: 3500 TPM & Fish Oil: 250 TPD, during 2014 and presently operating with its expanded capacity. Also the industry obtained CFE to upgrade ETP i.e. 400 KLD during 2019.

¶273

d) The unit has valid Hazardous Waste Authorization under the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, with validity up to 30.06.2021.

¶274

e) The unit has displayed the consent and H.W. Authorization conditions at the entrance of the unit, as per the direction of Supreme Court order in W.P. (C) 657/1995, but the same need to be updated.

¶275

f) The source of water supply for industrial use is open well and bore well. Whereas the unit has not installed flow meter for recording water consumption. Also the unit has not obtained NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes.

¶276

g) The unit has 3 production lines each with a capacity of 200 TPD, to process total 600 TPD raw fish. The fish meal manufacturing process consists of Raw fish collection, Conveyor, Cooker (2 Nos), Screw Press, Drier (2 Nos), Sever, Grinder (2 Nos), Cooler (2 Nos), sever followed with packing. The fish oil production consists of Tricanter, centrifuge and multistage evaporator. During the inspection, the unit was operating a single production line, due to shortage of raw material i.e. Sardines. As per record produced, the average monthly production was 1713.47 TPM of fish meal, which is 49% of its consented capacity.

¶277

h) The effluent generated from evaporator Condensate (Process), Condensate from deodorizer system, Vehicle wash, Machine wash (like screw process, Evaporator, Tri canter and Centrifuge) and Floor Washings are treated in ETP. The unit is permitted by KSPCB to utilise the treated effluent for cooling tower make-up and excess to discharge in to Sea. The unit has provided flow meters for the inlet & outlet of ETP and also have separate Energy Meter.

¶278

i) The unit has laid pipeline of 1.5 Kms to discharge treated effluent in to river ending up at sea, about 200 meters inside the sea, for the same obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner. But, there was no specific studies carried out do

¶279

Page 30 of 87

¶280

decide the disposal point in sea by National Institute of Oceanography. Whereas during the committee visit, the provision made for discharge of effluent in to sea is discontinued and the unit informed that the entire treated effluent is consumed for boiler feed, cooling tower make up, washing and gardening / agricultural use since 2018, after up gradation of ETP.

¶281

j) The committee observed that the actual water consumption reported and effluents generated are exceeding the permitted capacity of KSPCB in the consent. The details are:

¶282

S.		*Water Consu*	*mption*	*Effluent Gen*	*eration*
*No.*	*Purpose*	*(KLD*	)	*(KLD)*
		*As per CFO*	*Actual*	*As per CFO*	*Actual*
1	Domestic	8	15	7	10
2	Industrial
	a) Agriculture	80	42	0.0	0.0
	b) Boiler feed	20	30	5.0	-
	c) Cooling Water	70	250	0.0	-
	d) Process Water	0.0	0.0	138	282
	e) Others-Washings	-	39	0.0	39
	*Total*	*170*	*361*	*143*	*321*

¶283

k) The unit has installed capacity of 400 KLD ETP, the process effluent are treated with UASB followed with ASP and Sand and Activated Carbon Filter. The condensate water is directly taken to ASP for treatment. The treated effluent is permitted to discharge in to sea after meeting the surface water discharge standards.

¶284

l) The domestic sewage is managed through septic tank and the septage is cleared by the Municipality. Whereas the Canteen wastewater is discharged without treatment in to neighbouring land.

¶285

m) The committee was informed that KSPCB has been collecting ETP treated effluent samples regularly to verify the discharge standards. The compiled analysis results for period from January 2017 to October 2019 confirms that out of 28 samples collected, on 2 occasions the samples exceeded the prescribed standards w.r.t. BOD, COD and SS during September & October 2018.

¶286

n) On the day of inspection, the committee collected raw and treated effluent (grab) to assess the performance and compliance to the discharge standards. The analysis results of raw effluent and treated effluent is tabled below:

¶287

*S. No*	*Parameters*	*Units*	*Raw* *Effluent*	*Treated* *Effluent*	*KSPCB* *Standard*
1	pH @ 25°C	-	7.4	*7.5*	*5.5 – 9.0*
2	SS	mg/L	550	12	*100*
3	BOD	mg/L	570	22	*100*
4	COD	mg/L	1664	167	*250*
5	TRC	mg/L	BDL	BDL	1
6	Sulphide	mg/L	5.6	2.4	5
7	Ammonical Nitrogen	mg/L	54.3	12.3	50

¶288

Page 31 of 87

¶289

8	TKN	mg/L	87.9	31.3	*100*
9	Free Ammonia	mg/L	0.959	0.217	5
10.	Nitrate	mg/L	4.71	12.8	-
11	Oil & Grease	mg/L	12	BDL	20

¶290

The above table reveals that the treated effluent is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB. The performance of existing ETP is found satisfactory with BOD removal efficiency of >96% & COD removal efficiency of about 90%.

¶291

o) The unit has provided shed for the entire process area from the raw material to the finished products and ETP. Due to which there is very less chances of contamination of runoff rainwater during rainy season. Some of the open area kept for vehicle movement, the surface run off shall be separately collected and treated along with effluent.

¶292

p) Waste Vapour generated from steam driers are taken to evaporator and after heat recovery, the waste vapour is passed through Tubular Condenser, Deodorizer and enzyme scrubbers, the treated vapours are connected to Boiler Chimney. The stick water vapour generated in evaporators is condensed and condensate is being taken into Effluent Treatment Plant for further treatment.

¶293

q) The unit has provided storage area for storing Hazardous Waste Generated, but the same need to be upgraded with adequate area and spillage collection pits and free from water entry. The committee also noticed that Hazardous wastes such ETP sludge, oil waste etc. are stored in adjacent land in unscientific way causing soil contamination. The Hazardous Waste Authorisation need to be amended with all types of hazardous and other wastes.

¶294

r) There was not much odour within the premises, but, as the very nature of activity involves fish, fish smell was in the surrounding air.

¶295

s) The unit burns solid wastes etc. in open area, need to be stopped. The solid waste management within the premises is ignored and needs improvement.

¶296

t) The D.G. sets are provided with acoustic enclosure and emission vents.

¶297

M/s Hindustan Marine Industries:

¶298

Name & Location	*M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries* Sy. No. 193/2P1, 193/2P2 Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi
Category and Classification	Small Orange
Activity & Consented Production Capacity	Manufacturing of fishmeal & fish oil  Fish Meal – 250 MT/ Month  Fish oil – 25 MT/Month
Status of consent and validity	CFO obtained under Water & Air Act is valid up to 30.09.2023.
Status of H.W. Authorization & Validity	Excepted because the unit is having only DG set as air pollution source < 500 KVA.
Date of Inspection	10.12.2019
Person Contacted	Sri. M K Balraj, Proprietor

¶299

Observations :

¶300

Page 32 of 87

¶301

a) M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries has obtained necessary land conversions of Sy. No. 193/2P1 and 193/2P2 for industrial purpose from Tahasildar, Udupi. The land conversion details are:

¶302

*Survey* *Number*	*Extent of Land* *(Acres)*	*Purpose of* *Conversion*	*Reference of Conversion* *Order*
193/2P1	0.26	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:110/08- 09, dt:16/06/2008
193/2P2	0.19	Industrial	C.DIS.A.L.N(1)S.R:108/08- 09, dt:16/06/2008
Total	0.45 acres

¶303

The unit has obtained land conversion for 0.45 acres land for industrial purpose.

¶304

b) The unit has obtained building license from Udyavara Gram Panchayat on 09.02.2004 vide No:U.G.P/115/2003-04. However, Grama Panchayat has cancelled the trade license issued to the industry and industry has obtained stay at Hon‟ble High Court against the said cancellation order. However, as per letter of Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR), GOK dated 24.02.2016, Grama Panchayats do not have authority to issue trade license to industries and they should not collect such license fees from industries.

¶305

c) The unit is categorized as Small Orange, was inspected on December 10, 2019, found operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, with validity up to 30.09.2023. The Consent for Establishment (CFE) was issued on 07.08.2004 and first Consent for Operation (CFO) was issued vide order dated 15.06.2006 for a period up to 30.06.2007. The details of CFE/CFO issued to the unit is tabulated below:

¶306

*Sl.* No	*Type of* *Consen* t	*Issue Date & reference*	*Validit* y *Period*	*Consented* *Production* *Capacity*
1	Consent For Establishment (CFE)	No:30/KSPCB/RO(MN G) /UDP/AEO-2/ SR/2004- 05/250 dt:07.08.2004	3 years up to 06.08.2007	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
2	First CFO	No:30/KSPCB/RO/UD P/ AEO-1/2006-07/220 Dated:-15/06/2006 No:41/KSPCB/RO/UDP / AEO-1/2006-07/221 Dated:-15/06/2006	Valid up to 30.06.2007	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
3	CFO renewal	No:01/KSPCB/RO/UD P/ DEO-1/2007-08/60 Dated:-27.04.2007 No:02/KSPCB/RO/UDP / DEO-1/2007-08/61 Dated:-27.04.2007	01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
4	CFO renewal	No:23/KSPCB/RO/Udup i /EO/2009-10/ 216 Dated:-27.05.2009	01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
5	CFE expansion	KSPCB/CFE/MR/09- 10/603 Dated:-03.03.2006	3years from date of issue	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD For up gradation of existing ETP to 30m³/d capacity.
6	CFO renewal	No:03/KSPCB/EO/DEO / AEO/WPC & APC/2010-	01.07.2010 to 10.10.2010	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD

¶307

Page 33 of 87

¶308

		11/515 date:31.08.2010
7	CFO renewal (corrigendum)	PCB/UDP/EO/2010- 11/785 Dated:-14.10.2010	10.10.2010 to 10.11.2010	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
8	CFO renewal (corrigendum)	PCB/UDP/EO/2010- 11/1318 Dated:-31.01.2011	11.11.2010 to 30.06.2011	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
*Sl.* No	*Type of* *Consen* t	*Issue Date & reference*	*Validit* y *Period*	*Consented* *Production* *Capacity*
9	CFO renewal	KSPCB/SEO(Non-EIA- OB)/2015-16/225 Dated:- 26.05.2015	01.07.2013 to 30.09.2018	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD
10	CFE expansion	KSPCB/SEO(NEIA- OB)/LR/2015-16/709 Dated:-05.08.2015	5years valid up to 04.08.2020	Fish Meal-10TPD Fish Oil-1TPD Installation of 4.5TPH boiler in place of existing 2TPH Boiler and installation of 50 Tonnes capacity horizontal roto disk direct drier.
11	CFE expansion	Consent order No CTE- 301315 Date:- 03.11.2016	Valid up to 02.11.2021	Fish Meal-250TPM Fish Oil-25TPM
12	CFO expansion	Consent order No : AW- 302087 Date:-15/02/2017	04.01.2017 to 30.09.2018	Fish Meal-250TPM Fish Oil-25TPM
13	CFE expansion	Consent order No: CTE: 302303 Date:-18/03/2017	Valid up to 17/03/2021	Fish Meal-250TPM Fish Oil-25TPM
14	CFO renewal	Combined consent order No: AW:307053 Date:- 28/07/2018	01/10/2018 to 30.09.2023	Fish Meal-250TPM Fish Oil-25TPM

¶309

The above table reveals that the unit initially started with a capacity of Fish meal: 10 TPM & Fish Oil: 1 TPD, latter obtained CFE for expansion of Fish meal: 250 TPM & Fish Oil: 25 TPD, during 2016 and presently operating with its expanded capacity. Also, the industry obtained CFE to upgrade ETP i.e. 30 KLD during 2006. But, the unit is not producing fish oil presently.

¶310

d) The unit has one 200 KVA DG set, the only hazardous waste generated is used oil. Board is not insisting hazardous waste authorisation if the unit is having only DG set as air pollution source up to 500 KVA as per circular No. KSPCB/CC/81(Vol2)/2008-09/168 dated 19-04-2008.

¶311

e) The sources of water supply for industrial use are open well and also purchased water through tankers during summer. Whereas the unit has not installed flow meter for recording water consumption. Also, the unit has not obtained NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes.

¶312

f) The unit has single production line with a capacity to produce 8 TPD fish meal, to process total 30 TPD raw fish. The fish meal manufacturing process consists of raw fish collection, conveyor, cooker, drier, screening, pulveriser, final screening followed with packing. There is no fish oil production. As per record produced, the average production for month was 108 TPM, which is 43.2% of its consented capacity.

¶313

g) The effluent generated from melted ice carrying solids & bloods, condensate from deodorizer system, Vehicle wash, Machine wash and Floor Washings are treated in ETP. The unit is permitted by KSPCB to discharge the treated effluent in to sea after meeting the surface water standards. The unit has provided flow meters for the inlet & outlet of ETP and also have separate Energy Meter.

¶314

h) The unit has laid pipeline of 0.8 Kms to discharge treated effluent in to river ending

¶315

Page 34 of 87

¶316

up at sea, about 100 meters inside the sea, for the same obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner. But, there was no specific studies carried out do decide the disposal point in sea by National Institute of Oceanography. Whereas during the committee visit, observed that the unit stopped discharge of treated effluent in to Sea through laid pipelines, and the unit informed that the entire treated effluent is consumed for boiler feed, cooling tower make up, washing and gardening, after up gradation of ETP.

¶317

i) The committee observed that the actual water consumption reported and effluents generated are exceeding the permitted capacity of KSPCB in the consent. The details are:

¶318

S.	*Purpose*	*Water Consu* *(KLD)*	*mption*	*Effluent Gen* *(KLD)*	*eration*
*No.*		*As per CFO*	*Actual*	*As per CFO*	*Actual*
1	Domestic	0.7	3.0	0.6	2.4
2	Industrial a) Boiler feed	20	20	2.0	3.0
	b) Cooling Water	0.5	1	0.0	1.0
	c) Process Water	0.0	0.0	10	15.0
	d) Others-Washings	4.0	7.0	4.0	4.0
	*Total*	*24.5*	*28.0*	*16.0*	*23.0*

¶319

j) The unit has installed capacity of 30 KLD ETP, the process effluent are treated with Anaerobic Digester, Sequential Batch Reactor and Sand and Activated Carbon Filter. The treated effluent is permitted to discharge in to sea after meeting the surface water discharge standards. The domestic effluent is managed through septic tank / soak pit. There is no generation of gas from the anaerobic digester. The unit has provided sludge drying beds to handle the sludge generated, need to provide cover during rainy days (or) to be upgraded with filter press etc.

¶320

k) The committee was informed that KSPCB has been collecting ETP treated effluent samples regularly to verify the discharge standards. The compiled analysis results for period from January 2017 to October 2019 confirms that out of 28 samples collected, on 5 occasions the samples exceeded the prescribed standards w.r.t. BOD and Chloride during Jan. to April, 2017 and November 2017.

¶321

l) On the day of inspection, the committee collected raw and treated effluent to assess the performance and compliance to the discharge standards. The analysis results of raw effluent and treated effluent (grab) is tabled below:

¶322

S. No	*Parameters*	*Units*	*Raw* *Effluent*	*Treated* *Effluent*	*KSPCB* *Standard*
1	pH @ 25°C	-	8	*8.3*	*5.5 – 9.0*
2	SS	mg/L	414	16	*100*
3	BOD	mg/L	48	16	30
4	COD	mg/L	371	106	*250*
5	TRC	mg/L	BDL	BDL	1
S. No	*Parameters*	*Units*	*Raw* *Effluent*	*Treated* *Effluent*	*KSPCB* *Standard*

¶323

Page 35 of 87

¶324

6	Sulphide	mg/L	2.4	BDL	-
7	Ammonical Nitrogen	mg/L	26.8	9.5	50
8	TKN	mg/L	52	16.8	*100*
9	Free Ammonia	mg/L	0.959	1.45	5
10.	Nitrate	mg/L	1.44	5.6	10
11	Oil & Grease	mg/L	8	BDL	10

¶325

The above table reveals that the treated effluent is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB. The performance of ETP need to be further improved to achieve BOD removal efficiency > 90%.

¶326

m) Waste Vapour generated from steam driers of fish meal are treated through scrubber, condenser and bio filter. After the bio filter, due to high temperature the water vapour is generated from the bio filter, need to be improved further to reduce the smell nuisance.

¶327

n) The unit is having 1 boiler of 6 TPH which is connected to chimney of 30 meters above ground level with cyclone dust collector. Fuel used for the boiler was fire wood.

¶328

M/s Unity Fish meal & Oil Company:

¶329

Name & Location	M/s. Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company, Sy. No. 240/1A1, Pithrody, Udupi
Category and Classification	Medium Orange
Activity & Consented Production Capacity	Manufacturing of fishmeal & fish oil  Fish Meal – 42 TPD  Fish oil – 18 TPD
Status of consent and validity	CFO obtained under Water & Air Act expired on 30.09.2015. The unit is not in operation.
Status of H.W. Authorization & Validity	Authorization under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & TransboundaryMovement) Rules, 2016 expired on 30-06-2014. Industry is closed since then.
Date of Inspection	11.12.2019
Person Contacted	Sri. Mahesh Udyavara, Partner

¶330

Observations:

¶331

a. M/s. Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company is established on the land belonging to Department of Fisheries on lease from Govt. of Karnataka for a period of 10 years from 07.05.2007, the lease period is expired. Also, the Committee was informed that due to internal problems in partners, the unit stopped their entire production activity from 2014, now the case is pending in court.

¶332

b. The unit has obtained building license from Udyavara Gram Panchayat on 03.02.2009 vide No:U.G.P/65/2008-09. However, Grama Panchayat has cancelled the trade license issued to the industry and industry has obtained stay at Hon‟ble High Court against the said cancellation order. However, as per letter of Ministry of RDPR, GOK vide order dated 24.02.2016, Grama Panchayats do not have authority to issue trade license to industries and they should not collect such license fees from industries.

¶333

Page 36 of 87

¶334

c. The unit is categorized as Medium Orange, was inspected on December 11, 2019, the consent issued under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 expired on 30.09.2015. Informed that the unit is not operating since 2014 due to partners issue and the matter is pending in the Court.

¶335

d. The Consent for Establishment (CFE) was issued on 18.3.2009 and first Consent for Operation (CFO) was issued vide order dated 07.11.2009 for a period up to 30.06.2010. The detail of CFE/CFO issued to the unit is tabulated below:

¶336

*Sl.* No	*Type of* *Consent*	*Issue Date & reference*	*Validity* *Period*	*Consented* *Production* *Capacity*
1	CFE	No. PCB/1423/CFE/ MR/08/1039 dated 18.3.2009	18.3.2012
2	First CFO	_No. KSPCB/SEO/CFO/ _ WA/AA/2009/ 792 date: 7.11.2009	01.3.2009 to 30.6.2010	Fish Meal :42 TPD Fish Oil : 18TPD
3	CFO Renewal	_NO.99/KSPCB/EO/DE _ O/AEO/WPC&APC/2 010-11/511 DATE: 31.8.2010.	31.8.2010 to 10.10.2010
4	Corrigendu m	NO: PCB/UDP/EO/ 2010-11/1343 date: 31- 01-2011	11.10.2010 to 30.6.2011	Fish Meal :42 TPD
5	CFO Renewal	NO: 12/PCB/EO/EO/ WPC/APC/2013-14/ 280 date: 25-06-2013	25.6.2013 to 30.6.2013	Fish Oil : 18TPD
6	CFO, Extension	Reg. No. 53394 date:01/07/2013	30.9.2015

¶337

e. The Hazardous Waste Authorization issued under the Hazardous and other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 has expired on 30.06.2014. Industry is closed since then.

¶338

f. The unit has provided 50 KLD effluent treatment plant towards South West (about 500 M distances), the provision is made to pump the effluent to ETP. The ETP found non-operational due to stoppage of unit.

¶339

M/s Suha Sea Food:

¶340

Name & Location		M/s Suha Sea Food, C/o Fisheries and Fish Product Societybuilding, Near Kamanu, Udyavara, Udupi.
Category and Classification		Small Orange
Activity & Capacity		Fish Cutting, about 12 TPD.
Status of consent validity	and	CFE & CFO not obtained under Water & Air Acts.
Date of Inspection		11.12.2019
Person Contacted		Sri. Lavith, Supervisor

¶341

Observations:

¶342

a) M/s Suha Sea Food was in operation without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 from KSPCB.

¶343

Page 37 of 87

¶344

b) The unit is carrying out cutting and cleaning of fishes for about 12 TPD, the cleaned fishes are transported to other industries as a raw material. There are about 45- 50 workers working in the unit.

¶345

c) The source of water supply is well water, which is used for majorly for washing of fishes, floor washing, and for the domestic use of labourers.

¶346

d) In the process of cutting and cleaning of fishes, the blood soaked effluent and waste generated are directly discharged into Udyavara River through pipeline. Also solid wastes are being disposed in to river.

¶347

e) The labour sheds are not provided with proper toilet facility, open pit toilet blocks are adopted due to which the night soil are directly discharged to the river through pipeline, causing serious water pollution & odour nuisance.

¶348

f) There are no air pollution sources such as D.G. set, Boiler etc.

¶349

g) On the day of inspection, the committee collected raw effluent (grab) discharged in to River Udyavara to assess the pollution load. The analysis results of Raw effluent is tabled below:

¶350

Analysis Results of Raw effluent
S. No Parameters Units Raw Effluent KSPCB
Standards
1 BOD mg/L 720 100
2 COD mg/L 2045 250

¶351

The above table reveals that the un-treated effluent having BOD load of 720 mg/L is discharged into River against the discharge standard of 100 mg/L. All such a unit shall be brought under consent mechanism and shall provide effluent treatment plant to avoid discharge of untreated effluent in to River

¶352

M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food:

¶353

Name & Location		M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food, C/o Sowkar canning Compound, Near Kamanu, Udyavara, Udupi.
Category and Classification		Small Orange
Activity & Capacity		Fish Cutting, about 12 TPD.
Status of consent validity	and	CFE & CFO not obtained under Water & Air Acts.
Date of Inspection		11.12.2019
Person Contacted		Sri. Santosh, Proprietor

¶354

Observations:

¶355

a)M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food was in operation without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 from KSPCB.

¶356

b)The unit is carrying out cutting and cleaning of fishes for about 12 TPD, the cleaned

¶357

Page 38 of 87

¶358

fishes are transported to other industries as a raw material. There are about 60 workers were working in the unit.

¶359

c) The source of water supply is well water, which is used for majorly for washing of fishes, floor washing, and for the domestic use of labourers.

¶360

d)In the process of cutting and cleaning of fishes, the blood soaked effluent and waste generated are directly discharged into Udyavara River through pipeline. Also solid wastes are being disposed in to river.

¶361

e) There are no air pollution sources such as D.G. set, Boiler etc.

¶362

f) On the day of inspection, the committee collected raw effluent (grab) discharged in to River Udyavara to assess the pollution load. The analysis results of Raw effluent is tabled below:

¶363

Analysis Results of Raw effluent

¶364

*S. No*	*Parameters*	*Units*	*Raw Effluent*	*KSPCB Std.*
1	BOD	mg/L	1800	*100*
2	COD	mg/L	5944	*250*

¶365

The above table reveals that the un- treated effluent having BOD load of 1800 mg/L is discharged into River against the discharge standard of 100 mg/L. All such a unit shall be brought under consent mechanism and shall provide effluent treatment plant to avoid discharge of untreated effluent in to River

¶366

M/s Coastal Sea Food:

¶367

Name & Location	M/s Coastal Sea Food, C/o Tulasi Compound, Near Kamanu, Udyavara, Udupi.
Category and Classification	Small Orange
Activity & Capacity	Fish Cutting, about 12 TPD.
Status of consent and validity	CFE & CFO not obtained under Water & Air Acts.
Date of Inspection	11.12.2019
Person Contacted	Sri. Santosh, Manager

¶368

Observations:

¶369

a) M/s Coastal Sea Food was in operation without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 from KSPCB.

¶370

b) The unit is carrying out cutting and cleaning of fishes for about 12 TPD, the cleaned fishes are transported to other industries as a raw material. There are about 50 workers were working in the unit.

¶371

c) The source of water supply is well water, which is used for majorly for washing of fishes, floor washing, and for the domestic use of labourers. There was no flow record available to know the actual consumption and discharge of wastewater.

¶372

d) In the process of cutting and cleaning of fishes, the blood soaked effluent and waste generated are directly discharged into Udyavara River through pipeline. Also solid

¶373

Page 39 of 87

¶374

wastes are being disposed in to river.

¶375

e) There are no air pollution sources such as D.G. set, Boiler etc.

¶376

f) On the day of inspection, the committee collected raw effluent (grab) discharged in to River Udyavara to assess the pollution load. The analysis results of Raw effluent is tabled below:

¶377

Analysis Results of Raw effluent

¶378

*S. No*	*Parameters*	*Units*	*Raw* *Effluent*	*KSPCB* *Standard*
1	BOD	mg/L	2400	*100*
2	COD	mg/L	4760	*250*

¶379

The above table reveals that the un- treated effluent having BOD load of 2400 mg/L is discharged into River against the discharge standard of 100 mg/L. All such a unit shall be brought under consent mechanism and shall provide effluent treatment plant to avoid discharge of untreated effluent in to River.

¶380

Coastal Zone Regulations and its compliance by Industries

¶381

The MOEF & CC have issued CRZ Notification vide No. S.O. 114 (E) dated 19^th February 1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and regulating the activities in the CRZ with a view (i) to ensure livelihood security to the fisher communities and other local communities, living in the coastal areas, (ii) to conserve and protect coastal stretches, its unique environment and its marine area, and (iii) to promote development through sustainable manner based on scientific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards in the coastal areas sea level rise due to global warming.

¶382

Subsequently, the MOEF &CC declares the following areas as CRZ and imposes with effect from the date of Notification of S.O.19 (E) dated 6^th January 2011, the following restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries operations or process and the like in the CRZ:

¶383

(i) the land area from High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as the HTL) to 500 mts on the landward side along the sea front.

¶384

(ii) CRZ shall apply to the land area between HTL to 100 mts or width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side along the tidal influenced water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance up to which development along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance up to which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (ppt) measured during the driest period of the year and distance up to which tidal effects are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated accordingly in the Coastal Zone Management Plans (hereinafter referred to as the CZMPs) .

¶385

(iii) the land area falling between the hazard line and 500 mts form HTL on the landward side, in case of seafront and between the hazard line and 100 mts line in case of tidal influenced water body the word “hazard line‟ denotes the line demarcated by MOEF &CC through the Survey Of India (SOI) taking into account tides, waves, sea level rise and shoreline changes.

¶386

(iv) land area between HTL and Low Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as the LTL) which will be termed as the intertidal zone.

¶387

(v) the water and the bed area between the LTL to the territorial water limit (12 Nm) in case of sea and the water and the bed area between LTL at the bank to the

¶388

Page 40 of 87

¶389

LTL on the opposite side of the bank, of tidal influenced water bodies.

¶390

Classification of CRZ as per Section 7:

¶391

For the purpose of conserving and protecting the coastal areas and marine waters, the CRZ area shall be classified as follows, namely: CRZ-I, II, III and IV.

¶392

CRZ-I: The areas that are ecologically sensitive and the geo-morphological features which play a role in the maintaining the integrity of the coast. The area between Low Tide Line and High Tide Line.

¶393

CRZ-II: The areas that have been developed up to or close to the shoreline

¶394

CRZ-III: Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those do not belong to either CRZ-I or II which include coastal zone in the rural areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas, which are not substantially built up.

¶395

CRZ-IV : the water area from the Low Tide Line to twelve nautical miles on the seaward side; shall include the water area of the tidal influenced water body from the mouth of the water body at the sea up to the influence of tide which is measured as five parts per thousand during the driest season of the year. Prohibited activities within CRZ as per Section 3

¶396

The following are declared as prohibited activities within the CRZ which is applicable in this case:

¶397

*Section*	*Activity*
3 (i)	Setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries,
3 (iii)	Setting up and expansion of fish processing unit including warehousing
3 (iv)	Land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater
3 (v)	Setting up and expansion of units or mechanism for disposal of wastes and effluents
3 (vi)	Discharge of untreated waste and effluents from industries, cities or towns and other human settlements except facilities required for discharge of treated effluent into the water course with approval
	under Water Act, 1974.
3 (vii)	Dumping of city or town wastes including construction debris, industrial solid wastes, fly ash for the purpose of land filling.

¶398

Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA):

¶399

The CRZ notification imposes certain restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations or processes and the like. Whereas, all projects attracting this notification require prior CRZ Clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, i.e., Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority.

¶400

The important observations of the committee with respect to compliance of CRZ regulations and action taken by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority are discussed below:

¶401

M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company

¶402

Page 41 of 87

¶403

The unit was established outside CRZ land bearing Sy.no 110 of Udyavara village, later the unit has undertaken expansion towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ-I area and also reclaimed river portion falling in CRZ - IV violating the provisions of CRZ notification 2011 as per para 3 (i), (iii) (iv) & (v).

¶404

The location of the unit showing the entire area of the unit, CRZ jurisdiction, activities within CRZ are shown below:

¶405

CRZ jurisdiction and classification of Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company

¶406

The above map reveals the following:

¶407

	*Area*	M²	%	*Within CRZ %*
	Total Area of the unit	22105.996	100
	Outside CRZ	10480.025	47.40807	*5259193*
	Within CRZ-I : Inter tide zone	1550.202	7.012586	.
	Within CRZ-II	9778.974	44.23675
	Within CRZ-IV : River Body	296.795	1.3426

¶408

From above table it is clear that out of total area, 47.40% area is outside CRZ and the remaining land of 52.60% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ. The activities such as Parking shed with metal roofing, Toilet, Cooling tower, Weighing bridge, Portion of Godown, ETP- UASB Tank and Oil tanks (one 2000 KLD, 4 x 200 KLD and 10 Nos of T20 Oil tanks) are falling in CRZ – II zone as per CRZ Notification, 2011 (i.e. CRZ-1 zone as per 1991 notification).

¶409

Action taken by KSCZMA & the status:

¶410

The unit was issued with direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 15.03.2018 for the violation of CRZ notification 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ.

¶411

In view of above, the unit filed a Writ Petition No. 14808/2018 (GM – RES) in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. In this matter, the court vide order dated 07.11.2019 directed that the petition is rejected as there is a remedy available under Section 5 (A) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. However, the interim Order granted shall continue for next 3 months and liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file appeal before appropriate authority.

¶412

M/s Hindustan Marine Industries:

¶413

The unit was established outside CRZ land bearing Sy. No. 193/2P1 of Udyavara village, later the unit has undertaken expansion towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ-I area and also reclaimed river portion falling in CRZ - IV violating the provisions of CRZ notification 2011 as per para 3 (i), (iii) (iv) & (v). The location of the unit showing the entire area of the unit, CRZ jurisdiction, activities within CRZ are shown below:

¶414

The above map reveals the following:

¶415

*Area*	M²	%	*Within CRZ %*
 Total Area of the unit	8632.725	100
 Outside CRZ	7187.725	83.26	*16.74*
 Within CRZ-I : Inter tide zone	Nil	0

¶416

Page 42 of 87

¶417

	Within CRZ-II	1445.000	16.74
	Within CRZ-IV : River Body	Nil	0

¶418

From above table it is clear that out of total area, 83.26% area is outside CRZ and the remaining land of 16.74% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ. The activities such as ETP, Toilets and Cooling Tower are falling in CRZ – II zone as per CRZ Notification, 2011 (i.e. CRZ-1 zone as per 1991 notification).

¶419

Action taken by KSCZMA & the status:

¶420

¶421

In view of above, the unit appealed to Hon‟ble NGT, Delhi vide Appeal No. 56 of 2018. Hon‟ble NGT on 08.02.2019 has issued direction stating that, “In our considered opinion, Appellant ought to have first abided by the directions given by the authority in the said letter. Approaching the Tribunal at this stage is premature. Therefore, we direct the Appellant to first approach the authority concerned. In case, thereafter, appellant has any grievance, he would be at liberty to seek redress before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law”. Accordingly, M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries was issued with notice on 16.08.2019 to comply with the directions of Hon‟ble NGT”. Accordingly, the industry has approached the KSCZMA and submitted application for CRZ clearance on 26^th August 2019.

¶422

M/s Unity Fish meal & Oil Company:

¶423

The unit was established outside CRZ land bearing Sy.no 240/1A1 of Udyavara village, later the unit has established Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ-I area violating the provisions of CRZ notification 2011 as per para 3 (i), (iii) (iv) & (v).

¶424

The above map reveals the following:

¶425

	*Area*	M²	%	*Within CRZ %*
	Total Area of the unit	4060.15	100
	Outside CRZ	3237.5	79.7	*20.3*
	Within CRZ-I : Inter tide zone	Nil	0
	Within CRZ-II	822. 65	20.3
	Within CRZ-IV : River Body	Nil	0

¶426

From above table it is clear that out of total area, 79.7% area is outside CRZ and the remaining land of 20.3% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ. The activities such as ETP are falling in CRZ –II zone as per CRZ Notification, 2011 (i.e. CRZ-1 zone as per 1991 notification).

¶427

Action taken by KSCZMA & the status:

¶428

The unit was issued with direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 12.06.2018 for the violation of CRZ notification 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ.

¶429

In view of above, the unit filed a Writ Petition No. 30725/2018 (GM – POL) in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. In this matter, the court vide order dated 14.06.2019 granted a status quo against Section 5 notice and interim order continue till a date.

¶430

Health Status of Village People

¶431

Page 43 of 87

¶432

The applicant in its application mentioned that the people of several villages nearby (i.e. Udyavara, Anagudde, Kote, Katapady, Manipura, Kuthpady & Kadekar villages) are seriously affected by water pollution & have been suffering from skin diseases, respiratory problems etc., In view of above, the committee requested the Regional Office of KSPCB, Udupi to address a letter to District Health & Family Welfare Officer, Udupi (DHO) to obtain the report on the same.

¶433

In this matter, the KSPCB, Udupi addressed letter to DHO on 16.12.2019 seeking their replies on any increased cases of skin diseases & respiratory problems in the above mentioned 7 villages, compared to other villages in their jurisdiction and whether they are able to co- relate the cases to these fish meal industries and also to submit any post mortem report of death of that brilliant boy.

¶434

The reports of Primary Health Centres (PHCs) of Moodabettu, Manipura and Malpe villages are collected and submitted to KSPCB by the DHO on 10.01.2020 and 23.01.2020. The same is given below:

¶435

a) Primary Health Centre, Moodabettu:

¶436

The Medical officer has reported that

¶437

They have conducted a survey of skin and respiratory diseases in December 2019 in the villages coming under Moodabettu and as per the survey, there is increased cases of skin and respiratory diseases in the villages surrounding the fish meal industries .

¶438

In the report, the medical officer has reported that the patient died of disease called Neuro meliodosis, but, post mortem was not done. It is further reported that the disease is caused by bacteria pseudomonas which is found in contaminated water and soil . Occurrence of the disease is more with paddy field workers and constant exposure to contaminated water during heavy rains and flooding and the patient also resided in the vicinity of paddy farms in and around his house. It is doubted that as the patient with bare feet was playing in the ground before infection happened.

¶439

Medical officer has further commented that the incident happened in July 2018 and the well water samples collected from 49 wells in surrounding area during that time were found not fit for drinking. As per the medical officer, Hydrogen Sulphide test for bacteriological assessment of E-coli was done on these samples.

¶440

b) Primary Health Centre, Manipura :

¶441

The medical officer reported that:

¶442

There is no such increase in incidences of skin diseases in the jurisdiction of their office as compared to other villages. As reported by the Manipura villagers staying near the river for the past 4-5 years colour of water has changed and is with smell because of people throwing meat and other solid waste in to the river during night time and as such can‟t be used for household purpose.

¶443

c) Primary Health Centre, Malpe : The medical officer reported that

¶444

Malpe region has reported that the reported cases of skin and respiratory diseases are natural cases and not related to river contamination by Udyavara fish meal industry.

¶445

The reports of said Medical officers are enclosed as Annexure 4.

¶446

8.0 Fisheries Department Report:

¶447

Page 44 of 87

¶448

The applicant in its application mentioned that deaths of thousands of fishes due to wastage of fish meal plants and that various fishes and valuable species in the river & around are in dangers of extinction because of the polluted water from the fish meal industries of Udyavara. In view of above, the committee requested the Regional Office of KSPCB, Udupi to address a letter to Department of Fisheries, Udupi to obtain the report on the same.

¶449

In this matter, the KSPCB, Udupi addressed letter to Department of Fisheries on 16.12.2019. The concerned Asst. Director, Fisheries, Udupi has replied vide letter dated 31-12-2019 that they do not have any such file in their office which dealt with the issue of fish kill in Udyavara river. Regarding extinction of certain varieties of fish in Udyavara River, he has informed that Department of Fisheries conduct the study on fish yield/catch based on the fish catch that is received at Fishing harbours through boats and not focussing the fish catch in a particular river including Udyavara. Hence, Department of Fisheries is unable to tell which particular fish species have gone to extinction in Udyavara River.

¶450

The copy of the reply of Department of Fisheries is enclosed as Annexure 5 .

¶451

Overall Observation of the Committee

¶452

i. Udyavara village:

¶453

Udyavara town is having a total population of about 11,854. Udyavara village is having agricultural, commercial and industrial activities such fish meal & oil companies, fish cutting industries and Fish Canning industries. The village is not having sewage network, the individual houses are managing their sewage by providing septic tank / soak pit. At many places, people have built toilets just on the bank of the river, and discharging in to River.

¶454

There is no proper management of Solid Waste in the Udyavara Village and observed that heap of solid wastes were dumped along the bank of the river, at some places solid wastes were thrown in to the river, also solid wastes were dumped and fired.

¶455

ii. Status of Udyavara River Water Quality

¶456

The river originates in Western Ghats near Hebri at the top of Narasimha parvatha and flows from east to west and turns north to separate Udyavara and Malpe and finally joins Arabian Sea near Malpe. The river water quality of Udyavara River is being monitored at two locations by KSPCB regularly.

¶457

The river water quality monitoring results during January 2017 to October 2019 confirms that river water quality is confirming to the prescribed Water Quality Standards for Coastal Water Marine Outfalls – SW II w.r.t. pH, BOD, DO and Turbidity.

¶458

The river water samples collected at five locations of River Udyavara at upstream and downstream points during committee visit also confirming to the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW-II Waters - For Bathing, Conduct Water Sports, Commercial Fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls. The Dissolved Oxygen of the River Water ranged between 5.1 to 8 mg/L, the TDS between 6910 to 10450 mg/L, Ammonical Nitrogen between 0.6 to 6.7, TKN between 2.8 to 16.8, pH between 6.7 to 7.1 and the BOD between 2 to 3. During high tide, where as there is no much change in pH, BOD.

¶459

iii. Status of industries compliance

¶460

The applicant in its application mentioned that the respondents No. 10 to 12 are operated without valid CFO, violation of Coastal Regulation Zone in extending their area of operation and Udyavara is being polluted, the fish and other

¶461

Page 45 of 87

¶462

marine life are dying. The compliance status of such industries is:

¶463

Out of three industries, two industries namely M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s Hindustan Marine Industries are operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. Whereas M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company is not operated since 2014 and their consent expired on 30.09.2015.

¶464

In addition to above, there are three more industries namely (i) M/s Suha Sea Food and (ii) M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food and (iii) Coastal Sea Food involved in fish cutting & canning are operated without prior consent from concerned departments in Udyavara Village.

¶465

The industries are mostly depending on either open well & bore well or tanker water for their industrial use. But, none of the industries have obtained NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of ground water for industrial use.

¶466

As per consent of KSPCB, all three units are permitted to discharge the treated effluent in to Sea after meeting the surface water standards. However, the operating units namely M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s Hindustan Marine Industries are discontinued the discharge of treated water into sea and the entire treated effluent is recycled for boiler feed, cooling tower make up, washing and garden use. But, the same is not amended in the consent conditions.

¶467

The actual water consumption and effluents generated of two operating units are exceeding the permitted capacity of KSPCB in the consent.

¶468

M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company has provided UASB followed with ASP and DMF for treatment of effluent and the treated effluent is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB. The performance of ETP is found with BOD removal efficiency of >96% & COD removal efficiency of about 90%.

¶469

M/s Hindustan Marine Industries has provided Anaerobic Digester, SBR and DMF for treatment of effluent and the treated effluents is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB. The performance of existing ETP is found with BOD removal efficiency of >90%.

¶470

The Hazardous waste management within the industries are found poor, the same need to be improved. The Hazardous Waste Authorization need to be amended with all types of hazardous and other wastes. Also noticed that some of H.W. are stored in open area.

¶471

The other fish cutting units namely M/s Suha Sea Food, M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food, and M/s Coastal Sea Food are discharging their effluent (>10 M³ per day each) in to river without any treatment. The pollution load of raw effluent sampling & analysis confirmed that the COD ranges between 2045 to 5944 mg/L, and BOD ranges 720 to 2400 mg/L.

¶472

These units have obtained land conversion for industrial use from Tahasildar and building & trade licenses from from Udyavara Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, Grama Panchayat has cancelled the trade license issued to the units and units have obtained stay from Hon‟ble High Court against the cancellation. But, as per letter of Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR), GOK dated 24-02- 2016, Grama Panchayats do not have authority to issue trade license to industries and they should not collect such license fees from industries.

¶473

iv. Status of CRZ regulation compliances

¶474

The important observations of the committee with respect to compliance of CRZ regulations and action taken by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority are:

¶475

Page 46 of 87

¶476

1) M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company

¶477

The unit has total area of 22105.996 M² , out of 47.40% (10480.025 M² ) area is falling outside CRZ and the remaining land of 52.60% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ.

¶478

The KSCZMA issued direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the violation of CRZ notification 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ.

¶479

In view of above, the unit filed a Writ Petition No. 14808/2018 (GM – RES) in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, the court vide order dated 07.11.2019 directed that the petition is rejected as there is a remedy available under Section 5 (A) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

¶480

2) M/s Hindustan Marine Industries:

¶481

The unit has total area of 8632.725M² , out of 83.26% (7187.725M² ) area is falling outside CRZ and the remaining land of 16.74% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ.

¶482

The KSCZMA issued direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the violation of CRZ notification 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ.

¶483

In view of above, the unit appealed to Hon‟ble NGT, Delhi vide Appeal No. 56 of 2018 and the Hon‟ble NGT on 08.02.2019 has issued direction stating that, “In our considered opinion, Appellant ought to have first abided by the directions given by the authority.

¶484

3) M/s Unity Fish meal & Oil Company:

¶485

The unit has total area of 4060.15 M² , out of 79.7% (3237.5 M² ) area is falling outside CRZ and the remaining land of 20.30% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ.

¶486

The KSCZMA issued direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the violation of CRZ notification 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ.

¶487

In view of above, the unit filed a Writ Petition No. 30725/2018 (GM – POL) in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, the court vide order dated 14.06.2019 granted a status quo against section 5 notice and interim order continue till a date.

¶488

v. Health Status of Village people

¶489

The Primary Health Centres report of Moodabettu, Manipura and Malpe villages concludes that

¶490

There is increased cases of skin and respiratory diseases in the Moodabettu villages surrounding the fish meal industries.

¶491

The death of the boy in Moodabettu village is due to disease called Neuro meliodosis, caused by bacteria pseudomonas which is found in contaminated water and soil.

¶492

No such increase in incidence of Skin diseases in the Manipura village, the colour of river water changed because of people throwing meat and other solid waste in to the river.

¶493

The skin and respiratory diseases reported in Malpe region are natural cases and not related to river contamination by Udyavara fish meal industry.

¶494

vi. Extinction of Fish in River Udyavara

¶495

Page 47 of 87

¶496

Department of Fisheries conducted the study on fish yield/catch based on the fish catch that is received at Fishing harbours through boats and not focussing the fish catch in a particular river including Udyavara. Hence, Department of Fisheries is unable to tell which particular fish species have gone to extinction in Udyavara River.

¶497

Never the less, the industries need further improvements with respect to control of water and air pollution and hence the committee makes the following recommendations.

¶498

Recommendations of the Committee

¶499

Based on the above observations, the following recommendations are proposed for the implementation:

¶500

a. To obtain NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes by the industrial units.

¶501

b. All the fish processing industries operating in the region shall install flow meter for their water consumption, raw effluent generation and treated effluent usage. Also day wise record of the same shall be maintained in separate log book.

¶502

c. The consent shall be amended for consumption of water, wastewater generation and mode of discharge of effluent based on the present practices i.e. Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). Also the existing pipeline laid for sea disposal shall be removed permanently. KSPCB shall verify and take appropriate action accordingly.

¶503

d. The industrial units shall install filter press or appropriate treatment system to manage their ETP sludge and shall discontinue the sludge drying beds to avoid mismanagement during rainy days.

¶504

e. The industrial unit shall use treated water for water scrubbing in place of fresh water and scrubbed liquid shall be discharged to ETP for treatment.

¶505

f. The unit discharging vapour after heat recovery though water scrubber shall be further condensed, if any to avoid odour nuisance and condensed vapour shall be treat in ETP.

¶506

g. To dispose the existing storages of hazardous wastes to the authorized agency for recycling / final disposal as authorized. Also to renovate the existing Hazardous Waste Storage shed for adequate capacity to accommodate all type of Hazardous Wastes authorized by KSPCB and strictly to dispose within 90 days. The H.W. storage area shall be provided with free access, spillage collection pit of required size, impervious flooring, turbo ventilator for venting and free from rain water entry to the storage area. To maintain daily records of Hazardous Waste generated and storage inventory accordingly as per HWM Rules, 2016.

¶507

h. Surface run off generated during first rain fall shall be collected with adequate collection pit and transferred to ETP for further treatment and usage.

¶508

i. The domestic and canteen wastewater generated shall be treated in ETP along with other effluent and not to discharge directly without treatment.

¶509

j. To ensure the trucks carrying & transporting fish shall be provided with tank to collect the leachate water, to avoid spillage on the roads and the collected leachate shall be treated in the ETP.

¶510

k. Not to dispose and burn the solid waste generated and shall be disposed as per SWM Rules, 2016.

¶511

l. To regularize all the unorganized industries involved in fish cutting to obtain consent from the KSPCB and CRZ Clearance from Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority. Also to install individual or common effluent treatment

¶512

Page 48 of 87

¶513

plant to treat the effluent generated and not to discharge untreated effluent in to river.

¶514

m. Zilla Panchayat, Udupi shall implement SWM management in all the villages adjacent to the Udyavara River to stop disposing of Solid Wastes in to River and burning the same.

¶515

n. To stop entry of untreated sewage entering in to river and to take action to provide UGD and STP for managing sewage. Also to implement and explore the double pits concept for management of night soil (human excreta) / septage for the house located in Riverbank and not to discharge directly in to River.

¶516

o. KSCZMA to implement the directions as per the Court orders in the matter of CRZ violations by the industrial units.

¶517

p. District Health and Family Welfare Office shall conduct regular survey on health issue to know the reason for diseases.”

¶518

30. As per order dated 17.02.2020, this Tribunal, based on the Joint Committee report satisfied that there were certain violations noted which had to be looked into by this Tribunal. So, the matter was admitted and recorded the appearance of certain respondents through the learned counsel and thereafter, issued notice to those who had not entered appearance. Further, this Tribunal had directed the committee to assess the environmental compensation on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board for the violations noted which was considered by this Tribunal vide Order dated 25.08.2020 extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-

¶519

“ REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED IN THE MATTER OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2019 FILED BY SRI KISHORE KUMAR & OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA& ORS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI, REGARDING POLLUTION CAUSED BY FISHMEAL INDUSTRIES IN UDYAVARA, UDUPI TALUK AND DIST. KARNATAKA, AS PER THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2020

¶520

1.0 Preamble

¶521

In the matter of Original Application No 27 of 2019 (SZ), Sri. Kishore Kumar Vs Union of India &Ors., the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has passed an order dated 11^th October, 2019 (Annexure 1 ) and directed that “… It appropriate to constitute a Committee consisting of the Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka, Central Pollution Control Board, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the District Commissioner, Udupi District and District Magistrate, Udupi District to inspect the area in question and the industries and submit the factual report regarding the allegation made in the application and if there is any violation action if any to be taken and if any action is taken that also should be mentioned in the report. The SPCB will be the nodal agency for compliance of co-ordination”.

¶522

The Joint Committee accordingly inspected the location in question on during December 10^th and 11^th , 2019 (2 days) and submitted its report before the Hon‟ble NGT, Chennai. The Hon‟ble NGT after hearing the case passed an order on 07.02.2020 (Annexure 2 ) and has opined as …“The Committee is directed to

¶523

Page 49 of 87

¶524

assess the environmental compensation for the violations as directed by this tribunal in various cases of this nature, applying the principles and guidelines given by the Central Pollution Control Board in this regard, after giving necessary opportunity to the other side to meet the show cause notice issued for imposing compensation and submit a report before the next hearing date”.

¶525

Accordingly, the Member Convenor of the Joint Committee issued meeting notice to all the members of the Joint Committee to meet on March 18^th and 19^th , 2020 to assess the environmental compensation based on the methodology developed by Central Pollution Control Board. The Joint Committee after going through methodology and discussion has assessed the environmental compensation for each of the units identified in Udyavara, Udupi.

¶526

2.0 Policy for Levying Environmental Compensation(EC) for Industries In compliance of the Hon‟ble NGT order, to assess the Environmental Compensation based on “Polluter Pays Principle” under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the following cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines:

¶527

a) Discharge in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards / consent limits.

¶528

b) Not Complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.

¶529

c) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the online continuous emission/ effluent monitoring systems. d) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.

¶530

e) Intentional discharges to the environment – Land, Water and Air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.

¶531

f) Injection of treated/ partially treated / untreated effluents to ground water. After considering various factors including the policy implementation issues, CPCB has recommended the following formula for levying environmental compensation in instances as mentioned at a), b) and c) including non-compliances of the environmental standards/violation of directions. Accordingly, the Environmental Compensation (EC) is estimated based on the following formula:

¶532

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶533

Where,

¶534

PI – Pollution Index of industrial sector, R – A factor of Rupees for EC N – Number of days of violation took place LF – Location Factor S – Factor for scale of operation

¶535

The formula incorporates the anticipated severity of environmental pollution in terms of pollution index, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro and small / medium / large industries and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations.

¶536

3.0 Industries identified for assessing EC The following industries are identified for assessment of EC as per the methodology developed by CPCB:

¶537

1) M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi 2) M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶538

3) M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi 4) M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶539

5) M/s Coastal Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶540

6) M/s Suha Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶541

Out of six units, the units 1 to 3 are involved in manufacturing fishmeal and oil whereas the remaining units 4 to 6 are carrying out fish cutting.

¶542

4.0 Assessment of Environmental Compensation The Joint Committee has assessed the Environmental Compensation of above said six industries, the details are as follows:

¶543

4.1M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi This unit is manufacturer of fishmeal and fish oil, is categorized as Large Orange, operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. The consent is valid up to 30.09.2020 and authorisation under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 valid up to 30.06.2021. The Joint Committee based on the observations made during earlier inspection on 10.12.2019 and the non-compliances noticed over the period 5 years by KSPCB

¶544

Page 50 of 87

¶545

were considered for assessing the EC. The non-compliances noticed are tabulated below:

¶546

*Sl.* No	*Non-compliances noticed*	*Date / Period*	*Remarks*
1	Water consumption and Effluent generations are exceeding the permitted capacity of consent.	10.12.2019	As per the Committee Observation
2	Non-compliance of treated effluent w.r.t discharge standards.	September 2018 to October 2018	As per KSPCB records
3	Not having NOC from the Ground Water Authority for drawing ground water.	10.12.2019	As per the Committee Observation
4	Non-Compliance to Hazardous & Other Wastes Management Rules.	10.12.2019	As per the Committee Observation

¶547

The above cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines. The estimation of EC is

¶548

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶549

Pollution Index (PI): The unit is falling under the category of Orange, accordingly the average PI suggested is 50.

¶550

Number of Days of violation took place (N): T he details of non-compliance period are:

¶551

*Non Compliance P*	*eriod*	*Nb D*
*From*	To	*umer of ays*
26.09.2018	21.11.2018	56
10.12.2019	18.03.2020*	99
_Total Days _		*155*

¶552

Note : * Committee meeting date

¶553

A factor of Rupees for EC (R): As suggested in the report i.e. Rs.250

¶554

Factor for scale of operation (S): Large category and the factor is 1.5

¶555

Location Factor (LF): The total population is < 1Million and the factor is 1.0 According to above factors:

¶556

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶557

= 50 * 155 * 250 * 1.5 * 1.0= 29,06,250/-

¶558

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.29,06,250/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Two Fifty only).

¶559

4.2 M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶560

This unit is manufacturer of fishmeal and is categorized as Small Orange, operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, with validity up to 30.09.2023 and authorisation under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 is exempted by KSPCB because unit is having DG set of <500 KVA capacity.

¶561

The Joint Committee based on the observations made during earlier inspection on 10.12.2019 and the non-compliances noticed over the period 5 years by KSPCB were considered for assessing the EC. The non-compliances noticed are tabulated

¶562

below:

¶563

*Sl.* No	*Non-compliances noticed*	*Date / Period*		*Remarks*
1	Water consumption and Effluent generations are exceeding the permitted capacity of consent.	10.12.2019		As per the Committee Observation
2	Non-compliance of treated effluent w.r.t discharge standards.	January 2017 April 2017 November 2017	to &	As per KSPCB records
3	Not having NOC from the Ground Water Authority for drawing ground water.	10.12.2019		As per the Committee Observation

¶564

Page 51 of 87

¶565

The above cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines. The estimation of EC is

¶566

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶567

 Pollution Index (PI): The unit is falling under the category of Orange, accordingly the average PI suggested is 50.

¶568

 A factor of Rupees for EC (R): The committee of the opinion to consider Rs. 100 as a factor, being a small unit.

¶569

 Number of Days of violation took place (N): The details of noncompliance period are:

¶570

*Non Compliance P*	*eriod*	*Nb D*
*From*	To	*umer of ays*
23.01.2017	12.04.2017	79
23.11.2017	26.12.2017	33
10.12.2019	18.03.2020*	99
_Total Days _		*211*

¶571

Note: * Committee meeting date

¶572

 Factor for scale of operation (S): Small category and the factor is 0.5  Location Factor (LF): The total population is < 1Million and the factor is 1.0

¶573

According to above factors: EC = PI * N * R * S * LF = 50 * 211 * 100 * 0.5 * 1.0

¶574

= 5,27,500/-

¶575

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.5,27,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty seven Thousand Five Hundred only).

¶576

4.3 M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶577

This unit was manufacturer of fishmeal & oil and categorized as Medium Orange. The unit is not in operation since 2014. The consent obtained under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 has expired on 30.09.2015 and authorisation obtained under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 expired on 30.06.2014 .

¶578

The committee of the opinion that the unit was not in operation for more than 5 years and there is no information of non-compliance records found with the KSPCB. Hence, it is recommended not to consider for Environmental Compensation.

¶579

4.4 M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶580

This unit is involved in carrying out cutting and cleaning of fishes for about 12 TPD. This activity falls under the category of Orange, where, as per the estimation of the Pollution Index may be categorized as Green. The unit is in operation and discharging their effluent into Udyavara River without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from KSPCB.

¶581

The Joint Committee based on the observations made during earlier inspection on 11.12.2019 and the non-compliances noticed by KSPCB were considered for assessing the EC. The non-compliances noticed are tabulated below:

¶582

Sl. Non-compliances noticed Date Remarks No 1 Operating & discharging the effluent 09.10.2019 As per without obtaining the Consent. KSPCB records

¶583

The above case is considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines. The estimation of EC is

¶584

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶585

Pollution Index (PI): The unit is falling under the category of Orange, accordingly the average PI suggested is 25.

¶586

Number of Days of violation took place (N): T he details of non-compliance period are:

¶587

*Non Compliance P*	*eriod*	*Number o Das*
*From*	To	*f y*
09.10.2019	18.03.2020*	161
_Total Days _		*161*

¶588

Note: * Committee meeting date

¶589

Page 52 of 87

¶590

 A factor of Rupees for EC (R): The committee of the opinion to consider Rs. 100 as a factor, being a small unit.

¶591

 Factor for scale of operation (S): Small category and the factor is 0.5  Location Factor (LF): The total population is < 1Million and the factor is 1.0

¶592

According to above factors:

¶593

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶594

= 25* 161 * 100 * 0.5 * 1.0

¶595

= 2,01,250/-

¶596

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.2,01,250/- (Rupees Two Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only).

¶597

4.5 M/s Coastal Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶598

This unit is involved in carrying out cutting and cleaning of fishes for about 12 TPD. This activity falls under the category of Orange, where, as per the estimation of the pollution index may be categorized as Green. The unit is in operation and discharging their effluent into Udyavara River without obtaining consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 from KSPCB.

¶599

¶600

*Sl. No*	*Non-compliances noticed*		*Date*	*Remarks*
1	Operating & discharging effluent without obtaining Consent.	the the	09.10.2019	As per KSPCB records

¶601

Since the activity, category & scale of operation, date of observation and period non-compliance of the unit are remain same as M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food. Accordingly the estimated EC for M/s Coastal Sea Food is:

¶602

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶603

= 25* 161 * 100 * 0.5 * 1.0

¶604

= 2,01,250/-

¶605

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.2,01,250/- (Rupees Two Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only).

¶606

4.6 M/s Suha Sea Food, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶607

¶608

¶609

*Sl. No*	*Non-compliances noticed*	*Date*	*Remarks*
1	Operating & discharging the effluent without obtaining the Consent.	09.10.2019	As per KSPCB records

¶610

¶611

EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶612

= 2,01,250/-

¶613

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.2,01,250/- (Rupees Two Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only).

¶614

5.0 Action taken by KSPCB & KSCZMA

¶615

The Hon‟ble NGT, Chennai has directed concern authorities to submit their reply regarding the further action taken on the basis of show cause notices issued to the various industries on violation of CRZ regulations and pollution laws before the next hearing date i.e. 27.03.2020. The action taken by the authorities are as follow:

¶616

5.1 Action taken by KSPCB

¶617

Based on the non-compliances of the following fish meal/fish cutting units, the KSPCB has taken following actions.

¶618

Name of the industry

¶619

Date of Issue of Notices

¶620

Page 53 of 87

¶621

	*Notice*	*Show Cause Notice*	*NPD*
M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal &	16.03.2020	-	-
Oil Company
M/s Hindusthan Marine	16.03.2020	-	-
Industries
M/s Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company	No action is i	nitiated as the unit is clo	sed since 2014.
M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food	19.10.2019	07.12.2019	16.01.2020
M/s Coastal Sea Food	19.10.2019	07.12.2019	16.01.2020
M/s Suha Sea Food	19.10.2019	07.12.2019	16.01.2020

¶622

Note : NPD – Notice of Direction

¶623

5.2 Action taken by KSCZMA

¶624

The member of the committee from KSCZMA informed that KSCZMA has already initiated actions against the units violating CRZ regulations by issuing proposed direction as per Section 5 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The status report w.r.t show cause notice issued to the units and action taken on violation of CRZ regulation of the same will be submitted separately by KSCZMA before the Hon‟ble NGT, Chennai.

¶625

6.0 Summary

¶626

As per the Hon‟ble NGT, Chennai direction, the joint committee estimated the Environmental Compensation of the identified units by following the methodology evolved by CPCB. Accordingly, the summary of EC estimated is as follows:

¶627

*Sl. No*	*Name of the Unit*	*Estimated EC*
1	M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company	Rs. 29,06,250/-
2	M/s Hindusthan Marine Industries	Rs. 5,27,500/-
3	M/s Ocean Fresh Sea Food	Rs. 2,01,250/-
4	M/s Coastal Sea Food	Rs. 2,01,250/-
5	M/s Suha Sea Food	Rs. 2,01,250/-

¶628

The KSPCB shall take appropriate action on non-compliances observed and also to collect Environmental Compensation, as estimated on respective units.”

¶629

31. Respondent No.11 has filed objection to the Joint Committee report and the applicant filed their objection to the same. The applicant in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) was also filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the party respondents.

¶630

32. Vide Order dated 14.12.2020 in O.A. No.254 of 2020 (SZ), this Tribunal, after considering the prayers in the application observed that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the reliefs claimed as (A) and (B), but restricted the relief to (C), (D), (E) & (F) alone and admitted the matter to that extent. This Tribunal had also appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) a Senior Officer from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Bangalore, (ii) a Senior Officer from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Regional Office, Bangalore, (iii) a Representative of the KarnatakaState

¶631

Page 54 of 87

¶632

Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) and (iv) a Senior Officer from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found. The Joint Committee was directed to ascertain as to whether there was any violation of environmental laws in establishing such units in that area, including Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violation, whether necessary permissions have been obtained by them for the purpose of starting the units or continuing the units in that area, whether there is any pollution caused on account of functioning of those units and if there is any violation and environmental damage caused on account of their activities including pollution caused to air as well as water, then the Joint Committee was directed to assess the environmental compensation apart from taking action for violation in running the units under the respective statues. The Joint Committee was also directed to ascertain the Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) and also water quality in that area and if there is any contamination or pollution caused, suggest the remedial measures of rectifying the same as well. The Ministry of Environmental, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Bangalore was designated as the nodal agency for co-ordination and also for providing all necessary logistics for this purpose.

¶633

33. Pursuant to the above direction, the Joint Committee has filed the report and vide Order dated 15.03.2021, this Tribunal had considered the Joint Committee‟s report dated Nil, e-filed on 01.03.2021 and extracted in Para (25) of the order which reads as follows:-

¶634

“ REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY HON‟BLE NGT ( SZ) IN THE OA NO. 254 OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF SMT SUGANDHI SHEKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FISH MEAL (MILL) AND OIL COMPANY IN COASTAL AREA/RIVER BANKS ALONG THE BANKS OF UDHYAVARA RIVER, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.

¶635

2.0 PRELIMINARY MEETING

¶636

In compliance of above mentioned order, the Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEF & CC), Bangalore, vide letter No F. No. EP / 12.7 / 60/KAR/ dated 23.12.2020 have requested the concerned Departments / Authorities to nominate senior official for the Committee to complete the task as assigned by the Hon‟ble NGT.

¶637

It was brought to the notice that on the same matter an OA 27 of 2019 has been filed by Shri Kishore Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. Before the Hon‟ble NGT (SZ). Hon‟ble NGT(PB) vide order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure-I) has constituted a Joint Committee comprising senior officers from Central Pollution Control Board, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka, the District Commissioner, Udupi and

¶638

Page 55 of 87

¶639

District Magistrate, Udupi to inspect the area in question and the industries and submit the factual report.

¶640

Accordingly, the Joint Committee has submitted a detailed report to Hon‟ble Tribunal and again based on the direction of Hon‟ble NGT (SZ), the Joint Committee had submitted a report on Environmental Compensation. Copy of both the reports is enclosed at Annexure-II and III. The next date of hearing of OA 27 of 2019 is 02.02.2021.

¶641

In view of the above, in the matter of OA No 254 of 2020, on receipt of the nominations from CPCB and KSPCB, preliminary meeting of the Joint Committee was convened on 21.01.2021 to decide the further course of action.

¶642

Following Members were attended: 1. Shri Ramesh D. Naik, Senior Environmental Officer, Zonal Office, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mangalore. 2. Smt Sowmya, Scientist D, Central Pollution Control Board Bangalore 3. Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu, Scientist „E‟, Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bangalore. Smt Vijaya Hegde, Environmental Officer, KSPCB, Udupi has also attended the meeting.

¶643

3. DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

¶644

The Joint Committee has carefully examined the issues and direction of Hon‟ble NGT in both OAs- 27 of 2019 and 254 of 2020. The major issues raised in both the applications are operation of following three fish meal industries without valid consent for operation (CFO), violation of Coastal Regulation Zone in extending their area of operation and Udyavara is being polluted, the fish and other marine life are dying, one boy also died on account of unknown decease by name Neuro Melioidosis.

¶645

1) M/a. Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶646

2) M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udhavara, Udupi

¶647

3) M/s. Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyarava, Udupi

¶648

The Joint committee has also examined the mandate given by the Hon‟ble NGT in the present matter. It was noted that the only carrying out of ambient air quality monitoring is the additional mandate The .Joint Committee has also examined the mandate given by Hon‟ble NGT in the present matter. It was noted that the only carrying out of ambient air quality monitoring is the additional mandate to the Committee. The Committee noted that out of these three industries, M/s. Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi is not in operation since 2014 and others have valid Consent orders from KSPCB under Water and air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts. Further, these fish meal industries arc water pollution potential activities there are no process emission from these fish meal industries except boiler emission and the earlier Joint Committee has accordingly studied all relevant pollution aspects and submitted a detailed report. KSPCB is monitoring river water quality at two locations adjacent to these industries every month and as per the latest report (month of November, 2020) for the river water quality confirms to the prescribed standards. All the three have violated CRZ provisions and the KCZMA has already initiated action. Further, as per the Hon‟ble NGT, environmental compensation has also been calculated by the earlier. Joint Committee and submitted.

¶649

4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

¶650

After detailed deliberation, the, Joint Committee has made the following conclusion and Recommendations:

¶651

Since in another similar matter (OA 27 of 2019), a Joint Committee had been constituted with members including CPCB, KSPCB, KCZMA and the Committee had already inspected the areas, collected and analysed ground and river water samples, examined all relevant pollution aspects, submitted a detailed report and also a separate report on environmental compensation. The same is under consideration of Hon‟ble Tribunal (SZ) (next date of hearing of OA 27 of 2019 is on 02.02.2021), this, Joint Committee recommends to appraisal the above facts to Hon‟ble NGT (SZ) for perusal and further orders.”

¶652

34. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and appellant, MoEF&CC, State Departments, State Coastal Zone Management Authority, State Pollution Control Board and the fish meal units in all these cases.

¶653

Page 56 of 87

¶654

35. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) and 254/2020 (SZ) andRespondents No.5 to 8 in Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ) argued that the report of the Joint Committee will go to show that they have encroached into the CRZ areaand constructed certain portion of buildings in violation of CRZ Notification and certain activities are not permissible and they have not obtained any permission even for the regulated activity. They are not having necessary Consent and they are not having sufficient pollution control mechanism to manage the pollution and protecting environment. Further, according to them, the environmental compensation assessed is not correct. As per the inspection, they are violating the CRZ Notification, 2011 from the inception and the period of violation noted is not correct.

¶655

36. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents argued that they have already taken action against the party respondents and notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was issued and as regards the appellant in Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) is concerned, they issued final order to remove the encroachment in the CRZ Zone for their prohibited activity without obtaining permission even for the regulated activity and they filed an appeal before this Tribunal and stay has been obtained. As regards the others units are concerned, they are taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶656

37. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.15 in O.A. No.254/2020 and Respondent No.8 in O.A. No.27/2019 argued that they have already cancelled the license issued to the fish meal units and as such, the allegation that they have not taken any action against the unit is not correct.

¶657

38. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.23 in O.A. No.254/2020 and Respondent No.12 in O.A. No.27/2019 (viz., M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company) argued that it will be seen from the report that they have already closed the unit in 2014 and there was no violation noted against them.

¶658

Page 57 of 87

¶659

39. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.10 & 11 (viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries and M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company) raised common arguments alleging that there was no violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and it is not proved that they have committed any pollution activities and discharged any effluent into the sea as claimed in the application. Further, as regards the Respondent No.10 is concerned, only a portion of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) is protruding into the prohibited area and it is not a prohibited activity as such, but it is a regulated activity and the only allegation was that they have not obtained necessary clearance from the authorities. As regards the Respondent No.11 is concerned, they have only made a temporary construction and put some barrels to keep the collected effluents in the same which is supposed to be in the CRZ area. There is no allegation that they are discharging the same and they are prepared to remove the temporary structure from that place. As regards the proceedings in Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) is concerned, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that originally notice was issued to M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company, but subsequently final notice was issued to them and they appeared and submitted that they have not committed any violation and they have not constructed any building. Further, it is not clear from the notice issued as to whether the construction mentioned in the Joint Committee‟s report and the construction alleged in the show cause notice were one and the same. If it is different, then they have not given the details of the constructions made in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 which will have to be removed and as such, the proceedings are vitiated for want of particulars and the same will have to be set aside and it will have to be remitted to the authorities for issuing proper notice and conducting proper enquiry in this regard, if the alleged violation was other than the violation noted by the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal in their report. As regards the compensation aspect in respect of extraction of ground water is concerned, there is no necessity to obtain NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority, as it is not falling under critically exploited or other exploited area, but it is a safe zone. So, the compensation assessed

¶660

Page 58 of 87

¶661

by the authorities is excessive and against the principle of natural justice and the same will have to be revisited.

¶662

40. We have considered the pleadings, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties on both the sides and also perused the documents available on record.

¶663

41. The points that arose for consideration are:-

¶664

(i) Whether the fish meal and oil companies who were arrayed as Respondents No.10 to 12 in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) and Respondents No.21 to 23 in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) have committed any violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 or other environmental laws? (ii) Whether the Appellant in Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ) had made any constructions in the CRZ area in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and the order issued by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority is liable to be interfered with for the reasons stated by them in the appeal memorandum and at the time of hearing? (iii) Whether the objections raised by the Project Meal and Oil are Proponents/Fish Companies sustainable and whether they are entitled for exoneration from payment of compensation as claimed? (iv) Whether the compensation assessed by the Joint Committed appointed by this Tribunal is liable to interfered with or whether it will have to be enhanced as claimed by the applicants?

¶665

(v) What are all the directions (if any) to be issued applying the “Precautionary Principle” to protect environment? (vi) Relief and costs.

¶666

Page 59 of 87

¶667

POINTS:-

¶668

42. The grievance in both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] was that the fish meal and oil companies are making their activities in CRZ – I area in violation of the CRZ Notification and in spite of complaints filed, no action has been taken. They have also alleged that the fish meal and oil companies have not obtained necessary Consent and they are discharging the effluents into the CRZ area causing pollution and they are also extracting the groundwater from the CRZ area which is not permissible.

¶669

43. The grievance in the appeal [Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ)] was that originally a show cause notice was issued to another unit stating that they have made construction in CRZ area in violation of the CRZ Notification, but subsequently proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging that they have committed the same.

¶670

44. The Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal has not found any permanent construction said to have been made by the appellant in the disputed area, but on the other hand, the allegation was that they have made permanent construction in the CRZ area and there is contradictions and without conducting proper enquiry, they were directed to remove the construction without specifying the nature of construction, extent of construction and which portion of the construction has to be removed. They also inter-alia contended that the application is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation.

¶671

45. The official respondents submitted that they have taken appropriate action and in respect of the one of the unit, even demolition notices were issued and that was stayed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ).

¶672

46. As regards the contention that the applications are not maintainable cannot be accepted as in the case of continuing violation, each violation will be treated as an independent cause of action and if there is any damage caused to the environment and if they want restoration, then the period of limitation is five years under Section 15 of the National Green

¶673

Page 60 of 87

¶674

Tribunal Act, 2010. So, the contention that the applications are not maintainable and it is barred by limitation cannot be accepted.

¶675

47. As regards the limitation of filing appeal [Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ)] is concerned, none of the respondents have raised the question of limitation and further, it is seen from the documents produced by the appellant that earlier they filed a Writ Petition viz., W.P. No.14808 of 2019 (GM-RES) and the same was disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, granting three months time to the appellant to file an appeal and interim protection was also granted during that period from taking any action on the basis of the impugned order. Subsequently, further time of fifteen days was extended by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the Interlocutory Application filed by them and within that time, the appeal was filed. There was no case for the respondents that the appeal was filed beyond the time permitted by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka. Once the Constitutional Court has extended the time for filing the appeal and within that time if appeal is filed, then the direction issued by the Constitutional Court will be binding on this Tribunal as has been recently observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raguramakrishna Raju (M.P.) in Civil Appeal Diary No.16486 of 2022 dated 01.06.2022.

¶676

48. As regards the violation of CRZ Notification is concerned, this Tribunal had appointed a Joint Committee in both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] and the Joint Committees have filed the report and considered the nature of violations committed.

¶677

Findings of the Joint Committee:-

¶678

49. The Joint Committee has considered the alleged violations against (i) M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udupi, (ii) M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi and (iii) M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi along with certain other units which are situated in that areaby name (iv) M/s.

¶679

Page 61 of 87

¶680

Ocean Fresh Sea Food – Fish cutting shed, (v) M/s. Coastal Sea Food – Fish cutting shed and (vi) M/s. Suha Sea Food – Fish cutting shed.

¶681

50. The water quality of the water samples taken at two places at backside of M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and back side of M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries conforms with the prescribed standards of environmental parameters under the primary water quality standards of sea water i.e. Class SW – II Waters – For Bathing, conduct water sports, commercial fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls. As regards the river water quality is concerned, it was in conformity with the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW – II Waters – For bathing, conduct water sports, commercial fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls. The Dissolved Oxygen of the river water increase from 5.1 to 8 mg/L, the TDS increase from 6910 to 10450 mg/L, Ammonical Nitrogen increases from 0.6 to 6.7, TKN from 2.8 to 16.8 during high tide, where as there is no much change in pH, BOD.

¶682

51. As regards the 12^th Respondent in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) who was arrayed as 23^rd Respondent in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) viz., M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, it was noted as „Medium Orange‟ category. The Consent to Operate granted expired on 30.09.2015 and the unit was found to be not operating.

¶683

52. As regards the 11^th Respondent in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) who was arrayed as 22^nd Respondent in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) viz., M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, they have obtained Consent for Operation which is valid upto 30.09.2020 and obtained authorization under the Hazardous & Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 which is valid upto 30.06.2021. It was also observed that they have obtained necessary land conversion of Sy. No.110/4B, 110/15, 110/9C2B, 110/5B, 110/9C2B2, 110/4A, 110/15 and 110/9C2B1-P1 for industrial purpose from Tahsildar, Udupi and they have obtained land conversion permission for an extent 2.69 ¾ Acres. They also obtained the building license from Udyavara Gram Panchayat on 06.09.2007 but later the Gram Panchayat has cancelled the trade license

¶684

Page 62 of 87

¶685

issued to the industry and the industry has obtained stay from the Hon‟ble High Court against the said cancellation order. As per the letter of Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR), Government of Karnataka dated 24.02.2016, the Gram Panchayats do not have authority to issue trade license to industries and they should not collect such license fees from the industries. The unit was categorized as „Large Orange‟ category and they have obtained Consent from the State Pollution Control Board and the details of which were explained in the Joint Committee report which was already extracted earlier.

¶686

53. Further, it was noted that they have not provided flow meter for recording the water consumption and they have not obtained NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes. They have laid pipeline of 1.5 Kms to discharge treated effluent into the river ending upto sea, about 200 meters inside the sea, for which, permission has been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, but there was no specific studies carried out in order to decide the disposal point in sea by National Institute of Oceanography. However, at the time of inspection, it was found that the provision made for discharge of effluent into sea is discontinued and the unit informed that the entire treated effluent is consumed for boiler feed, cooling tower make up, washing and gardening/agricultural use since 2018, after upgradation of ETP. They have noted that there was not much odour within the premises, but as the very nature of activity involves fish, fish smell was experienced in the surrounding air. They were burning the solid wastes in open area and instructed that it has to be stopped. The solid waste management within the premises is ignored and needs improvement. Earlier, on two occasions, based on the data given by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, it was noticed that the discharge standards exceeded the prescribed standard w.r.t. BOD, COD and SS during September & October 2018.

¶687

Page 63 of 87

¶688

54. As regards the 10^th Respondent in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) who was arrayed as 21^st Respondent in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries is concerned, it was classified as „Small Orange‟ category and they were operating after obtaining necessary land conversion of Sy. No.193/2P1 and 193/2P2 for industrial purpose to an extent of 0.45 Acres. They have obtained license from the Panchayat but later the trade license was cancelled by the Gram Panchayat and they obtained stay from the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka. They are having valid Consent and they are not producing the fish oil presently. Here also, it was mentioned that they have not installed the flow meter with regard to water consumption and they have not obtained NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority. Earlier, they were discharging the trade effluent into the river end upto sea about 100 meters after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner without conducting any specific studies to consider all these aspects. But they have stopped the same after upgradation of their ETP. In earlier occasion, there was certain non-compliance of maintaining the standard for effluent noted with respect to BOD and Chloride during January – April 2017 and November 2017.

¶689

55. As regards the other fish cutting units are concerned who are not party to the proceedings, they are operating without necessary Consent from the State Pollution Control Board and apart from these industries, two more industries by name (i) M/s. Hindustan Fish Peeling Shed and (ii) M/s. Sowkar Canning Company are operating in Udyavara Village, Udupi are operating the unit with valid Consent from Karnataka SPCB which was valid up to 30.09.2020 and 30.09.2022 respectively and they are treating the effluents in the ETP as informed by the Karnataka SPCB, but the committee could not be able to inspect the same.

¶690

Violation of CRZ Notification, 2011:-

¶691

56. As regards the violation of CRZ Notification, it was mentioned that M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company had established their unit outside CRZ area bearing Sy. No.110 of Udyavara Village, and later the unit has undertaken expansion towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ – I

¶692

Page 64 of 87

¶693

area and also reclaimed river portion falling in CRZ – IV violating the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 as per Para 3 (i), (iii), (iv) & (v). They also given the area where the expansion made in the CRZ area in the maps provided along with the report. It is seen from the report that out of total area, 47.40% area is outside the CRZ and the remaining land of 52.60% is falling under CRZ which is violation of CRZ Notification. The activities such as parking shed with metal roofing, toilet, cooling tower, weighing bridge, portion of godown, ETP – UASB Tank and Oil tanks are falling in CRZ – II zone as per the CRZ Notification, 2011 (i.e. CRZ – I Zone as per the 1991 Notification).

¶694

57. It is also seen from the report that notice was issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 15.03.2018 for removal of structure falling within the CRZ area and a Writ Petition was filed as W.P. No.14808 of 2019 (GM-RES) before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka and vide Order dated 07.11.2019, writ petition is rejected, as there is a remedy available under Section 5 (A) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The interim order was extended for three months from the date of disposal and liberty was also given to the writ petitioner viz., the unit to file an appeal before the appropriate authority.

¶695

58. Further, it is revealed from the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the unit that proceedings are still pending and they have filed objection before the authority, but it is not known as to what is the present status of the proceedings pending before the State Coastal Zone Management Authority.

¶696

59. As regards M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries is concerned, in respect of violation of CRZ Notification, 2011,it was mentioned that the unit was established outside the CRZ area bearing Sy. No.193/2P1 of Udyavara Village and later, they had undertaken expansion towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ – I and also reclaimed river portion falling in CRZ – IV in violation of the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 as per Para 3 (i), (iii), (iv) & (v) which was shown in the map produced in the report.

¶697

Page 65 of 87

¶698

60. It was mentioned in the report that out of total area, 83.26% area is outside the CRZ and the remaining land of 16.74% is falling under CRZ, which is violation of CRZ. The activities such as ETP, toilets and cooling tower are falling in CRZ – II zone as per CRZ Notification, 2011 (i.e. CRZ – I Zone as per 1991 Notification). As regards the action taken by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority is concerned, they have mentioned that they have issued a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 15.03.2018 for violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ. They filed an appeal before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi as Appeal No.56 of 2018 and the National Green Tribunal by Order dated 08.02.2019 issued direction stating that “In our considered opinion, Appellant ought to have first abided by the directions given by the authority in the said letter. Approaching the Tribunal at this stage is premature. Therefore, we direct the Appellant to first approach the authority concerned. In case, thereafter, appellant has any grievance, he would be at liberty to seek redress before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, the unit had issued with notice on 16.08.2019 to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the industry had approached the KSCZMA for CRZ Clearance on 26.08.2019. They have not mentioned as what is the present stage of the same as well.

¶699

61. As regards M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, in respect of violation of CRZ Notification, 2011, it was mentioned that the unit was established outside the CRZ area bearing Sy. No.240/1A1 of Udyavara Village and later, the unit had established the ETP towards riverside in the area falling in CRZ – I violating the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 as per Para 3 (i), (iii), (iv) & (v). They also showed the area falling in the CRZ area in the map attached to the report.

¶700

62. Further, the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority has issued a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 12.06.2018 for violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and directed to remove the structure falling under the jurisdiction of CRZ. Aggrieved by the same, the industry has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka as W.P. No.30725 of 2018 (GM-POL)

¶701

Page 66 of 87

¶702

and vide Order dated 14.06.2019, the Hon‟ble High Court has granted a Status Quo against the Section 5 Notice and the interim order granted continues till date.

¶703

63. They also noted certain health related issues in that area. They have given certain recommendations to be followed by the units which reads as follows:-

¶704

“Recommendations of the Committee

¶705

Based on the above observations, the following recommendations are proposed for the implementation:

¶706

a. To obtain NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes by the industrial units.

¶707

b. All the fish processing industries operating in the region shall install flow meter for their water consumption, raw effluent generation and treated effluent usage. Also day wise record of the same shall be maintained in separate log book.

¶708

c. The consent shall be amended for consumption of water, wastewater generation and mode of discharge of effluent based on the present practices i.e. Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). Also the existing pipeline laid for sea disposal shall be removed permanently. KSPCB shall verify and take appropriate action accordingly.

¶709

d. The industrial units shall install filter press or appropriate treatment system to manage their ETP sludge and shall discontinue the sludge drying beds to avoid mismanagement during rainy days. E

¶710

. The industrial unit shall use treated water for water scrubbing in place of fresh water and scrubbed liquid shall be discharged to ETP for treatment.

¶711

f. The unit discharging vapor after heat recovery though water scrubber shall be further condensed, if any to avoid odor nuisance and condensed vapor shall be treated in ETP.

¶712

g. To dispose of existing storages of hazardous wastes to the authorized agency for recycling / final disposal as authorized. Also to renovate the existing Hazardous Waste Storage shed for adequate capacity to accommodate all type of Hazardous Wastes authorized by KSPCB and strictly to dispose within 90 days. The H. W. storage area shall be provided with free access, spillage collection pit of required size, impervious flooring, turbo ventilator for venting and free from rain water entry to the storage area. To maintain daily records of Hazardous Waste generated and storage inventory accordingly as per HWM Rules, 2016.

¶713

h. Surface run off generated during first rain fall shall be collected with adequate collection pit and transferred to ETP for further treatment and usage.

¶714

i. The domestic and canteen wastewater generated shall be treated in EIP along with other effluent and not to discharge directly without treatment

¶715

j. To ensure the trucks carrying & transporting fish shall be provided with tank to collect the leachate water, to avoid spillage on the roads and the collected leachate shall be treated in the ETP.

¶716

k. Not to dispose and burn the solid waste generated and shall be disposed as per SWM Rules, 2016.

¶717

l. To regularize all the unorganized industries involved in fish cutting to obtain consent from the KSPCB and CRZ, Clearance from Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority. Also to install individual or common effluent treatment plant to treat the effluent generated and not to discharge untreated effluent in to river.

¶718

m. Zilla Panchayat, Udupi shall implement SWM management in all the villages adjacent to the Udyavara River to stop disposing of Solid Wastes in to River and burning the same.

¶719

n. To stop entry of untreated sewage entering in to river and to take action to provide UGD and STP for managing sewage. Also to implement and explore the double pits concept for management of night soil (human excreta) /

¶720

Page 67 of 87

¶721

septage for the house located in Riverbank and not to discharge directly in to River.

¶722

o. KSCZMA to implement the directions as per the Court orders in the matter of CRZ violations by the industrial units.

¶723

p. District Health and Family Welfare Office shall conduct regular survey on health issue to know the reason for deceases.”

¶724

64. The Joint Committee also filed subsequent report imposing environmental compensation where they have given the details of assessment of compensation in respect of each unit viz., (i) M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, (ii) M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries and (iii) M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company as follows:-

¶725

“4.1 M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶726

This unit is manufacturer of fishmeal and fish oil, is categorized as Large Orange, operating with valid consents under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. The consent is valid up to 30.09.2020 and authorisation under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 valid up to 30.06.2021.

¶727

The Joint Committee based on the observations made during earlier inspection on 10. 12.2019 and the non-compliances noticed over the period 5 years by KSPCB were considered for assessing the EC. The non-compliances noticed are tabulated below:

¶728

Sl. No.	Non-compliances noticed	Date/Period	Remarks
1	Water consumption and effluent generations are exceeding the permitted capacity of consent	10.12.2019	As per the committee observation
2	Non-compliance of treated effluent w.r.t. discharge standards	September 2018 to October 2018	As per KSPCB records
3	Not having NOC from the Ground Water Authority for drawing groundwater.	10.12.2019	As per the Committee observation
4	Non-Compliance to Hazardous & Other Wastes Management Rules	10.12.2019	As per the Committee observation

¶729

The above cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines. The estimation of EC is EC = PI * N * R * S * LF

¶730

Pollution Index (PI): The unit is falling under the category of Orange, accordingly the average PI suggested is 50.

¶731

Number of Days of violation took place (N): The details of noncompliance period are:

¶732

Non-Complianc	e Period	Number of Days
From	To
26.09.2018	21.11.2018	56
10.12.2019	18.03.2020*	99
Total Day	s	155

¶733

Note : * Committee meeting date

¶734

Page 68 of 87

¶735

A factor of Rupees for EC (R): As suggested in the report i.e. Rs.250 Factor for scale of operation (S): Large category and the factor is 1.5 Location Factor (LF): The total population is < 1 Million and the factor is

¶736

1.0

¶737

According to above factors:

¶738

EC = PI * NR S * LF = 50 * 155 * 250 * 1.5 * 1.0 = 29,06,250/-

¶739

The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.29,06,250/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Two Fifty only).

¶740

4.2 M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶741

¶742

The Joint Committee based on the observations made during earlier inspection on 10. 12.2019 and the non-compliances noticed over the period 5 years by KSPCB were considered for assessing the EC. The non-compliances noticed are tabulated below:

¶743

Sl. No.	Non-compliances noticed	Date/Period	Remarks
1	Water consumption and effluent generations are exceeding the permitted capacity of consent	10.12.2019	As per the committee observation
2	Non-compliance of treated effluent w.r.t. discharge standards	January 2017 to April 2017 & November 2017	As per KSPCB records
3	Not having NOC from the Ground Water Authority for drawing groundwater.	10.12.2019	As per the Committee observation

¶744

The above cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation as per CPCB guidelines. The estimation of EC is

¶745

EC = PI * NRS*LF

¶746

Pollution Index (PI): The unit is falling under the category of Orange, accordingly the average PI suggested is 50.

¶747

A factor of Rupees for EC (R): The committee of the opinion to consider Rs.100 as a factor, being a small unit.

¶748

Number of Days of violation took place (N): The details of compliance period

¶749

are:

¶750

Non-Complianc	e Period	Number of Days
From	To
23.01.2017	12.04.2017	79
23.11.2017	26.12.2017	33
10.12.2019	18.03.2020*	99
Total Day	s	211

¶751

Note: * Committee meeting date

¶752

Factor for scale of operation (S): Small category and the factor is 0.5 Location Factor (LF): The total population is <1Million and the factor is

¶753

1.0

¶754

According to above factors:

¶755

EC = PINRS LF = 50 * 211 * 100 * 0.5 * 1.0 = 5,27,500/-The Environmental Compensation (EC) estimated is Rs.5,27,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty seven Thousand Five Hundred only).

¶756

4.3 M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi

¶757

This unit was manufacturer of fishmeal & oil and categorized as Medium Orange. The unit is not in operation since 2014. The consent obtained under

¶758

Page 69 of 87

¶759

Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 has expired on 30.09.2015 and authorisation obtained under Hazardous & Other Waste (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 expired on 30.06.2014.

¶760

The committee of the opinion that the unit was not in operation for more than 5 years and there is no information of non-compliance records found with the KSPCB. Hence, it is recommended not to consider for Environmental Compensation.”

¶761

65. Since other units viz., (i) M/s. Ocean Fresh Sea Food – Fish cutting shed, (ii) M/s. Coastal Sea Food – Fish cutting shed and (iii) M/s. Suha Sea Food – Fish cutting shed are not party to proceedings, we are not discussing about the same in these proceedings.

¶762

66. The fact that earlier there were certain violations and certain directions have been issued and subsequently, the same have been rectified. The period of violation was taken during the period of non-compliance and there was no much dispute regarding those aspects. As regards the NOC to be obtained for drawing the groundwater is concerned, they have relied on the notification issued by the Karnataka Ground Water Authority.

¶763

67. The Joint Committee appointed in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) also filed a report dated Nil, e-filed on 14.07.2021 which reads as follows:-

¶764

“ 3. DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

¶765

In order to deliberate on the given Terms of References (ToR), the Committee, had examined various documents like the latest monitoring reports, update on the action taken by KCZMA on CRZ violations etc., The Committee noted that these projects have been inspected by the CPCB, KSPCB and KCZMA as part of JC-1 and periodical KCZMA as part of JC-1 and periodically inspected / monitored by KSPCB Based on the above each ToR has been deliberated in detail and following are the observations/comments:

¶766

3.1 Whether there was any violation of environmental laws in establishing Whether there such units in that area, including Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) violation,

¶767

As per the records and findings of JC-1, all these three projects -1) M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi, 2) M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi and 3) M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi have violated CRZ Notification, 2011 and KCZMA has issued notice under section 5 of Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986. All the Fish meal processing units challenged the Section 5 notice issued by KSCZMA before different forums as below:

¶768

M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi: Challenged the impugned notice before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide Writ Petition No.14808/2018. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioner, the Fish meal Processing unit to approach Hon'ble NGT. Hence, M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company approached Hon'ble NGT(SZ) Chennai in Original Appeal no. 5/2020 and obtaind interim stay until further orders.

¶769

Page 70 of 87

¶770

M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi: The unit has preferred an Appeal No. 56/2018 before Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Wherein, Hon'ble NGT directed the Applicant, the Fish meal Processing unit to first approach the concerned authority. Hence, the applicant approached the KSCZMA requesting to issue NOC for construction of Effluent Treatment Plant. Since the ETP and other structures were already constructed in- violation of CRZ notification 2011, the KSCZMA reconfirmed its section 5 notice directing the Fish Meal Processing unit to comply with demolition order. The fish meal unit so far has not complied with the direction. Therefore, the process is pending for action under section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act 1986.

¶771

M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody: The Unit had approached Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide Writ Petition No. 30725/2018 against section 5 notice issued by KSCZMA. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner, the Fish meal processing unit to approach NGT in 3 months. As per available records, the petitioner fish meal processing unit has failed to comply with the above orders.

¶772

Therefore, this case is also pending for action under section 19 of Environment (Protection) Act 1986.

¶773

3.2 Whether necessary permission have been obtained by them for the purpose of starting the units or continuing the units in that area,

¶774

The earlier Joint Committee (JC-1) has examined the matter in detail and submitted the report, which holds good hence there is nothing to add.

¶775

3.3 Whether there is any pollution caused on account of functioning of those units and if there is any violation and environmental damage caused on account of their activities including pollution caused to air as well as water then, the committee is directed to assess the environmental compensation apart from taking action for violation in running the units under the respective statues. [ Study on Ambient Air quality exempted vide order dated 15.03.2021]

¶776

3.3.1 Environmental pollution on account of functioning of the industries: The earlier Joint Committee(JC-1) has examined the matter in detail and submitted the report. Based on the report, the KSPCB has issued Notices / directions to M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company and M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi. M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody was not in operation for more than five years. The compliances/corrective measures taken by these industries have been detailed in the report submitted by JC-1.

¶777

The JC-2 has examined the analysis report of the treated industrial effluent collected during the year 2020 and in January, 2021 (JC-1 carried out analysis till December, 2019) from M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company and M/s Hindustan Marine Industries and also the analysis report of the river samples collected at the both upstream and downstream of these industries during the same period. The details are given below:

¶778

Table: 1 Analysis results of effluent samples collected from ETP outlet of M/s Yasahswi Fish Meal & Oil co, Pithrody, Udupi

¶779

Date of Sampling	pH	SS	Oil & Grease	BOD	Sulphide	COD	Ammonical Nitaog	TKN	Free Ammonia	TRC
23.12.2019	6.4	16	BDL	20	BDL	142	11	22	0.0198	BDL
30.01.2020	6.6	18	BDL	4	BDL	46	7	12	5	BDL
27.02.2020	6.9	70	BDL	31	2	110	43	63	0.043	BDL
26.08.2020	6.9	22	BDL	7	BDL	72	2	5	0.0113	BDL
30.09.2020	5.5	22	BDL	3.9	1	42	5	7	0.0095	BDL
28.10.2020	7.1	20	BDL	6	2	96	8	10	0.1384	BDL
20.11.2020	6.6	82	2	25	3	183	48	82	0.2717	BDL
17.12.2020	6.5	26	BDL	7	1	68	41	60	0.745	BDL
07.01.2021	6.5	68	2	25	2	120	48	63	0.0864	BDL

¶780

Table: 2 Analysis results of effluent samples collected from ETP outlet of M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Udupi

¶781

Date of Sampling	pH	SS	Oil & Grease	BOD	Free Ammonia	TRC
23.12.2019	6	18	BDL	18	122	5.5

¶782

Page 71 of 87

¶783

30.01.2020	6.8		20	BDL	7	68	6.2
27.02.2020	7.6		18	BDL	10	121	2.23
30.09.2020	6.4		18	BDL	6.6	46	1.63
07.01.2021	7		48	2	19	188	9.8
Standards	5.5 9.0	–	100	10	100	5	1

¶784

From the above tables, it can be seen that the treated effluent is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB.

¶785

From the above tables, it is it can be seen that the river water is confirming to the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW-II Waters - For Bathing, Conduct Water Sports, Commercial Fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls.

¶786

3.3.2. Environmental compensation

¶787

The JC-1 has submitted a separate report on Environmental Compensation calculated EC till December, 2019. It is noted from the reports submitted by the JC-1, that the EC has been calculated based on the certain non-compliances/ violations. On the directions/ SCN issued by KSPCB, these industries have taken remedial measures. The details of compliances /corrective measures taken by these industries have been reported by the JC-1 in its report. Details are given below:

¶788

Page 72 of 87

¶789

Page 73 of 87

¶790

In view of the above, the JC-2 has concluded that imposition of additional Environmental Compensation does not arise.

¶791

3-3-3 Other Aspects: Hon'ble NGT (SZ) has issued a direction to the committee to file further report regarding the other aspects which is not considered in the earlier report. The Committee examined the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA 27 of 2019 and 254 of 2020 and found that all the aspects have been covered in the reports. However, in view of above, the Joint Committee requested the KSPCB to provide present status of the pollution control and the compliance of the earlier recommendations of the Joint Committee. The RO, KSPCB, Udupi again inspected the projects on 27.04.2021 to ascertain the present operational status of the Industry, compliance made to the Joint Committee directions in the matter of OA 27 of 2019 and made the following observations:

¶792

M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal Industry

¶793

Provisions, earlier made for discharge of effluent in to sea through pumps and pipes are disconnected by the Factory Authorities. The entire treated effluent is consumed for boiler feed, cooling tower make up, washing and gardening /forestry only. They have started sending treated water for watering the plantations planted along the National Highway. Treated effluents are collected every month for analysis & as per the reports analysed parameters are meeting with the standards. Industry has complied with the Hon'ble NGT (SZ) committee observations and directions.

¶794

Even though, the industry has disconnected the connection of pipeline and recycling the treated water completely, to avoid any suspicion of discharge of effluent from the industry into the river/sea, industry occupier may be directed to submit an action plan of year long complete recycling of treated water and to remove the pipeline laid to discharge treated water into the sea permanently.

¶795

M/s Hindusthan Marine Industries

¶796

It is noticed that the industry was not engaged in any production activities from several months. Only finished fish meal bags are stored in the industry premises. The proprietor of the industry informed that they have stopped the production activity from January, 2021 and now only stored the finished fishmeal transported from their sister concern fish meal industry located in Gujarat. At present the effluent generated from the M/s Hindustan fish cutting unit located adjacent to the industry was being treated in the existing ETP of 30 KLD. ETP was working during inspection and they have maintained Logbook for ETP and the treated water is being used for gardening purpose within the industry. Provision, earlier made for discharge of effluent in to sea pumps and pipelines laid in the river are removed. Waste Vapour generated from steam driers of fish meal are treated through scrubber, condenser and bio filter. After the bio filter, due to high temperature the water vapour is generated from the bio filter and this need to be improved further to reduce the smell nuisance. The Industry shall ensure efficient operation of bio-filter and scrubber by periodical replacement of filter media /scrubbing solution for effective odour removal. Copy of the inspection report dated 27.04.2021 are enclosed at Annexure-I &II

¶797

4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS After detailed deliberation, the Joint Committee has made the following conclusion and Recommendations:

¶798

4.1 CONCLUSIONS:

¶799

1. As per the records and findings of earlier Joint Committee constituted in OA 27 of 2019 (JC-1), all these three projects -1) M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi, 2) M/s Hindustan Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi and 3) M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi have violated CRZ Notification, 2011 and the KCZMA has issued notice under section 5 of Environment ( Protection ) Act, 1986. All these projects have challenged the notice issued by KCZMA before the court of law. The Original Appeal No. 5/2020 filed by M/s Yashaswi Fishmeal and Oil Company is pending in NGT, Chennai and other two cases are pending for action to be taken under section 19 of Environment Protection Act 1986.

¶800

2. As regards, the permission for the establishment and operation of these industries, the earlier Joint Committee (JC-1) has examined the matter in detail and submitted the report, which holds good hence there is nothing to add.

¶801

3. As regards the Environment Compensation, it is noted that based on the recommendations of the reports of earlier Joint Committee constituted in OA 27 of 2019 and directions of Hon‟ble Tribunal, the KSPCB has issued Notices / directions to M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company and M/s Hindustan

¶802

Page 74 of 87

¶803

Marine Industries, Pithrody, Udyavara, Udupi. M/s Unity Fishmeal and Oil Company, Pithrody was not in operation for more than five years. The compliances /corrective measures taken by these industries have been detailed in the report of JC-1. In view of the mitigative measures taken by these industries, the JC-2 has concluded that the Compensation imposed by earlier Committee is enough and imposition of additional Environmental Compensation does not arise.

¶804

4. The JC-1 has collected ground water, surface water and industrial treated effluent samples in December, 2019 and results are reported in its first report. Therefore, the JC 2 has examined the analysis report of the treated industrial effluent collected by KSPCB during the year 2020 and January, 2021 (JC-1 carried out analysis till December, 2019) from to M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company and M/s Hindustan Marine Industries revealed that the treated effluent is meeting the discharge standards prescribed by KSPCB.

¶805

5. Similarly, the analysis report of the river samples collected during the year 2020 and January, 2021 (JC-1 carried out analysis till December, 2019) at the both upstream and downstream of these industries is confirming to the primary water quality standards for sea water i.e. Class SW-II Waters - For Bathing, Conduct Water Sports, Commercial Fishing, as per the Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters Marine Outfalls.

¶806

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS:

¶807

Based on the above observations, the following recommendations in addition to the recommendations made by the earlier Joint Committee, are proposed for the implementation:

¶808

1. To follow up and obtain NOC from the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (KGWA) for usage of groundwater for industrial purposes by the industrial units.

¶809

2. Bio filter media to be replaced at suitable interval/ period so as to effectively control the odour nuisance

¶810

3. All these industries to ensure proper housekeeping, prevent spillages, ensure adequate and secured storage for wastes and Hazardous wastes till disposal to authorised agency

¶811

4. All these industries to comply with the instructions directions if any issued by KSPCB in time without fail so as to prevent environmental damages. 5. All these Industries to comply with CRZ provisions/regulations without fail so as to conserve and protect the coastal environment.

¶812

6. Even though, M/s Yashaswi Fish Meal Industry has disconnected the connection of pipeline and recycling the treated water completely, to avoid any suspicion of discharge of effluent from the industry into the river/sea, industry to submit an action plan of year long complete recycling of treated water and to remove the pipeline laid to discharge treated water into the sea permanently.

¶813

6. To control smell nuisance, M/s Hindusthan Marine Industries has taken measures to change the media for bio-filter and install scrubber condenser and found working effectively. The Industry shall ensure efficient operation of biofilter and scrubber by periodical replacement of filter media/scrubbing solution for effective odour removal.”

¶814

68. They also produced annexure showing the inspection of the unit along with the report.

¶815

69. It is clear from the Joint Committee report that all the three units who have been shown as respondents in the Original Application while expanding their activities encroached into the CRZ – I area against the CRZ Notification, 2011 and certain portions were constructed within that area which is not permissible under the CRZ Notification, 2011.

¶816

Page 75 of 87

¶817

70. In Kerala State Coastal Management Authority Vs. The State of Kerala, Maradu Municipality & Ors. (2019) 7 SCC 248 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that in case of violation of CRZ Notification and any construction made without obtaining necessary clearance/permission under the CRZ Notification, 2011 even in respect of permitted activities, the same is liable to be demolished and direction was also issued to the authorities to demolish the buildings which were constructed against the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011. Though it was falling in CRZ – III area, it is a permitted/regulated activity and since no clearance was obtained, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had found that it is an illegal construction and liable to be demolished. However, the authorities will have to issue notice to the unit/industry and after considering the objection, they will have to pass appropriate orders.

¶818

71. As regards M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, it was mentioned in the status report submitted by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority that in respect of violation, they issued notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Petitionwas filed before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka as W.P. No.30725 of 2018 and the Hon‟ble High Court by Order dated 22.07.2019 disposed of the writ petition with liberty for the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum. But they have neither complied with the directions issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 nor had they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. So under such circumstances, the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority is directed to take appropriate action against M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company in respect of violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 in accordance with law.

¶819

72. As regards M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries is concerned, it seen from the report submitted by the Joint Committee which includes the State Coastal Zone Management Authority that while they have expanded their unit certain constructions were made in CRZ – I area and those activities are prohibited under Para 3 (i), 3 (iii) and 8 I CRZ I (i) of the CRZ Notification. Accordingly, they have issued noticed under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 on 18.09.2017 and they

¶820

Page 76 of 87

¶821

submitted a reply to the same and as per the decision of the meeting held on 15.02.2018, they have issued notice for demolition of the portion of the fish processing unit and the ETP which has been constructed within the CRZ area violating the CRZ Notification. Against the same, they preferred an appeal before the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi as Appeal No.56 of 2018 and the Tribunal by order dated 08.02.2019 disposed of the appeal with the following orders:-

¶822

“In our considered opinion, Appellant ought to have first abided by the directions given by the authority in the said letter. Approaching the Tribunal at this stage is premature. Therefore, we direct the Appellant to first approach the authority concerned. In case, thereafter, appellant has any grievance, he would be at liberty to seek redress before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law” .

¶823

73. It is also mentioned therein that directions issued by the Karnataka State Coastal Management Authority on 15.03.2018 has been confirmed by the authority on direction to M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries to demolish a portion of the fish processing unit and the ETP vide letter dated 24.09.2020.

¶824

74. It is also seen from the status report submitted that M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries requested the authority vide letter dated 23.10.2020 to permit the ETP stating that it is zero discharge, as the entire water is being treated and recycled in that industry and it falls in CRZ – II as per new approval of CZMP which earlier was in CRZ – I area. But the authority considered the request in the meeting held on 04.03.2021 and that request cannot be considered since it is a prohibited activity as per Para 3 (v) of the CRZ Notification, 2011. So, they directed to demolish the portion of fish processing unit and the ETP in Sy. No.190 of Udyavara and they have issued a letter in this regard. Since the authorities have already initiated proceedings in respect of violation of CRZ Notification, we feel that they can be given liberty to proceed with the same in accordance with law, leaving open the right of the violators to approach the appropriate authorities if they are aggrieved by the order, if it is permissible in accordance with law, subject to law of limitation etc.

¶825

75. As regards M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, it was found that they have undertaken the expansion of the fish processing plant in Sy. No.110 of Udyavara Village adjacent to HTL of Udyavara

¶826

Page 77 of 87

¶827

River in CRZ – I area where the above activity was prohibited and thereby violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 as per Para 3 (i) and 3 (iii) of the Notification. The matter was considered by the KSCZMA in their meeting held on 25.07.2017 and they have decided to issue Notice of Proposed Direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and accordingly, notice was issued to the unit vide letterNo.FEE 187 CRZ 2017 dated 14.09.2017. They submitted a reply on 09.10.2017 stating that they have established fish processing unit after obtaining permission from the competent authority and denied that Sy. No.110/9c2b, 110/5b, 110/15, 110/4a, 110/15, 110/5b and 110/2c2bp2 of Udyavara Village, Udupi Taluk fall within the coastal regulation zone, even if the said areas fall within the coastal regulation zone, it cannot be classified as CRZ – I. Since setting up a new industry and expansion of existing industry within the CRZ area declared as prohibited activity and as per Para 3(i) and 3(iii), setting up of fish processing units including washing are also prohibited activity. In the meeting held on 15.02.2018, the KSCZMA had perused the reply submitted by M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and they concluded that they have undertaken the expansion of fish process unit in CRZ area which is a prohibited activity. As per Para 3(i) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, setting up of industries and expansion of existing industries within CRZ area and as per Para 3(iii) of the said Notification, setting up and expansion of fish processing unit including warehouse are also prohibited. So, it is decided to confirm the proposed direction issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Accordingly, under Section 5 Notice was issued to the said unit vide letter No. FEE 187 CRZ 2017 dated 15.03.2018 to demolish the said fish processing unit which is constructed 100 m from the HTL of Udyavara River in Sy. No.110/9c2b, 110/5b, 110/15, 110/4a, 110/15, 110/5b and 110/2c2bp2 of Udyavara Village, Udupi Taluk. Aggrieved by the same, they filed Writ Petition as W.P. No.14808 of 20189 on the ground that the buildings were constructed within their lands and beyond CRZ area. The Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, disposed of the writ petition stating that the writ petition is not maintainable leaving liberty to the writ petitioner to file an appeal as contemplated under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 within a period of three months from

¶828

Page 78 of 87

¶829

the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Interim order granted also will enure to the benefit of the writ petitioner for a period of three months from today. It is thereafter, the 5^th Respondent has filed an Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) before this Tribunal and the Tribunal stayed the proceedings, as it was alleged in the appeal memorandum that the notice was originally issued to M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udyavara alleging certain violation and they have not been given an opportunity too.

¶830

76. It was also mentioned in the status report that Notice of Proposed Direction was given in the correct address and they have submitted the reply on 09.10.2017 and against that order, they have filed writ petition mentioned above. So, it cannot be said that the original proposal was wrongly issued to another unit and they have not been given opportunity to file their objections.

¶831

77. It is also seen from the report filed by the Joint Committee that certain expansion activities are taken up by them which are falling in CRZ – I area. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Appeal No.05 of 2020 submitted that whatever constructions made in CRZ – I will be removed by them as they are temporary construction and certain barrels were kept, except that there was no permanent construction made by them. However, since there is a dispute regarding the nature of construction made by them, we feel it appropriate to restrict the demolition of the construction made by them as noted by the Joint Committee for the time being and in respect of any other construction which is under dispute, the authority is directed to give an opportunity to the unit and after considering their objections, pass fresh orders in this regard in accordance with law. So, we feel that the appeal [Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ)] can be disposed of with the above direction.

¶832

78. As regards the compensation aspect is concerned, two heads under which reason for compensation was violation of CRZ Notification and Consent condition. As regards the third ground is concerned, extracting the ground water without obtaining NOC from the Ground Water Authority.

¶833

Page 79 of 87

¶834

79. The learned counsels appearing for the fish meal industries have produced the notification issued by the Karnataka Ground Water Authority vide their Notification No.SANI E 09 AA JAAA dated 05.05.2020 classified 45 Taluks are areas drawing excess groundwater and these taluks were notified as over exploited area under the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011 and Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Rules, 2012 and the Udyavara Village in Udupi Taluk has not been included in this notification so as to establish that no prior permission is required for this purpose. However, it is for the Karnataka Ground Water Authority to consider as to whether any prior permission is required before extracting the groundwater in that area for industrial purpose, even if it is a safe zone not critically exploited area or otherwise exploited area under the provision of the above said Act and Rules. Since the flow meter has not been installed as found by the Joint Committee and even on earlier occasions, certain directions were issued for non-compliance as seen from the Joint Committee‟s report, they are not entitled to get total exoneration from payment of environmental compensation applying the guidelines provided by the CPCB.

¶835

80. As regards M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, it was closed and not functioning from 2014 onwards as found by the Joint Committee. However, as regards other two units viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries and M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company are concerned, they are functioning and the number of days violation were noted by the Joint Committee for the purpose of assessing compensation found to be acceptable. If the flow meters were not fixed, then it will not be possible to assess the quantity of water extracted and used and whether it is within the consent capacity provided in the Consent. Till that defect was rectified, it can only be treated as violation, though they subsequently obtained permission amending the consent in tune with the water quantity used. So, the period of violation noted by the Joint Committee on the basis of the non-compliance appears to be justifiable.

¶836

Page 80 of 87

¶837

81. Even assuming that the third ground on which the compensation cannot be assessed, there will not be any difference in the quantum of compensation fixed as against M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation assessed by the Joint Committee which the above said units are liable to pay.

¶838

82. As regards the alleged non-compliance of obtaining NOC for drawing the groundwater, we direct the Karnataka Ground Water Authority to consider the same independently and if there is any violation found of not obtaining NOC or permission for drawing the groundwater as per the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011 and Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Rules, 2012, then they are directed to take appropriate action against these two units (viz., M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries) in accordance with law including imposition of environmental compensation for drawal of groundwater in violation of the above said Act and Rules, depending on the quantity of water extracted by them, as directed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in several decisions where unauthorized groundwater extraction was considered and methodology for imposing compensation was issued. One such decision was in Original Application No.69 of 2020 (Sushil Bhatt Vs. Moon Beverage Limited and Ors.) and Appeal No.45 of 2020 (Devidas Khatri Vs. Union of India &Ors.) dated 25.02.2022.

¶839

83. In view of the discussions made above and also considering the circumstances, we feel that both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] and the appeal [Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ)] can be disposed of with the following directions:-

¶840

a. We confirm the Joint Committee report with regard to the violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and violation of Consent noted and imposition of compensation against Respondents No.10 & 11 in O.A. No.27 of 2019 (SZ)/ Respondents No.21 & 22 in O.A. No.254 of 2020

¶841

Page 81 of 87

¶842

(SZ) viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries and M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and they were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,27,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) and Rs.29,06,250/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Two Fifty only) respectively as assessed by the Joint Committee within a period of 3 (Three) Months and if the amount is not paid, then the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is directed to recover the amount from them in accordance with law.

¶843

b. As regards the violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and the action taken against M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries are concerned, we are not interfering with the final orders, if any, passed by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority. However, it will be subject to the appeal (if any) to be filed by the aggrieved party, if permissible and if it is within limitation in accordance with law.

¶844

c. As regards M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, we are partly allowing the Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as per the Joint Committee‟s report, only certain temporary construction of sheds and placing of barrels alone was noted and they are prepared to remove the same. So, we direct the demolition order passed to the extent of violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 noticed by the Joint Committee. But if any excess constructions have been made according to the State Coastal Zone Management Authority, then they are directed to conduct further enquiry regarding the constructions made other than the constructions noted by the Joint Committee by this unit and issue fresh notice in this regard and after giving opportunity to file objection and hearing the unit, they are directed to pass further orders in respect of the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶845

d. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority are directed to take appropriate action against those industries who are not party to the proceedings for the violation (if any) committed by them strictly in

¶846

Page 82 of 87

¶847

accordance with law by giving opportunity of issuing show cause notice and after hearing them, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and recover the compensation and other action, if any, to be proceeded against them in accordance with law.

¶848

e. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the operation of the units periodically and if there is any future violation found in respect of complying with the conditions of Consent or causing any pollution due to not providing pollution control mechanism, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law including imposition of environmental compensation for the violation committed.

¶849

f. As regards the question regarding drawing of groundwater by the units are concerned, the Karnataka Ground Water Authority is directed to conduct inspection of the units and ascertain as to whether they have obtained necessary permission if any required for the purpose of digging the bore well or open well under the provisions of the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011 and Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Rules, 2012 and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against the units in accordance with law, including imposition of environmental compensation for unauthorized drawal of groundwater, if it is required on the basis of the directions by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in similar issue [viz., Original Application No.69 of 2020 (Sushil Bhatt Vs. Moon Beverages Limited and Ors.) and Appeal No.45 of 2020 (Devidas Khatri Vs. Union of India &Ors.) dated 25.02.2022] pertaining to drawal of groundwater unauthorizedly without obtaining permission, if any, required under the respective statutes.

¶850

g. They must also consider the question of guidelines issued by the Jal Shakthi for drawal of groundwater on the basis of the National Water Policy and if there is any violation found, that also can be considered by them while taking action against the erring units in accordance with law.

¶851

Page 83 of 87

¶852

h. The units are directed to operate their units strictly complying with the environmental laws and conditions imposed in the Consent and other permissions granted without causing any pollution and also they are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Joint Committee for better performance of their units in an environment friendly manner.

¶853

84. In the result, both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] and the appeal [Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ)] are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶854

(i)

¶855

(ii)

¶856

We confirm the Joint Committee report with regard to the violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and violation of Consent noted and imposition of compensation against Respondents No.10 & 11 in O.A. No.27 of 2019 (SZ)/ Respondents No.21 & 22 in O.A. No.254 of 2020 (SZ) viz., M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries and M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company and they were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,27,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) and Rs.29,06,250/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Two Fifty only) respectively as assessed by the Joint Committee within a period of 3 (Three) Months and if the amount is not paid, then the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is directed to recover the amount from them in accordance with law.

¶857

As regards the violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 and the action taken against M/s. Unity Fish Meal and Oil Company and M/s. Hindustan Marine Industries are concerned, we are not interfering with the final orders, if any, passed by the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority. However, it will be subject to the appeal (if any) to be filed by the aggrieved party, if permissible and if it is within limitation in accordance with law.

¶858

Page 84 of 87

¶859

(iii) As regards M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company is concerned, we are partly allowing the Appeal No.05 of 2020 (SZ) in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as per the Joint Committee‟s report, only certain temporary construction of sheds and placing of barrels alone was noted and they are prepared to remove the same. So, we direct the demolition order passed to the extent of violation of CRZ Notification, 2011 noticed by the Joint Committee. But if any excess constructions have been made according to the State Coastal Zone Management Authority, then they are directed to conduct further enquiry regarding the constructions made other than the constructions noted by the Joint Committee by this unit and issue fresh notice in this regard and after giving opportunity to file objection and hearing the unit, they are directed to pass further orders in respect of the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶860

(iv)

¶861

(v)

¶862

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority are directed to take appropriate action against those industries who are not party to the proceedings for the violation (if any) committed by them strictly in accordance with law by giving opportunity of issuing show cause notice and after hearing them, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and recover the compensation and other action, if any, to be proceeded against them in accordance with law. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is also directed to monitor the operation of the units periodically and if there is any future violation found in respect of complying with the conditions of Consent or causing any pollution due to not providing pollution control mechanism, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law including

¶863

Page 85 of 87

¶864

imposition of environmental compensation for the violation committed.

¶865

(vi) As regards the question regarding drawing of groundwater by the units are concerned, the Karnataka Ground Water Authority is directed to conduct inspection of the units and ascertain as to whether they have obtained necessary permission if any required for the purpose of digging the bore well or open well under the provisions of the Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2011 and Karnataka Ground Water Authority (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Rules, 2012 and if there is any violation found, they are directed to take appropriate action against the units in accordance with law, including imposition of environmental compensation for unauthorized drawal of groundwater, if it is required on the basis of the directions by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in similar issue [viz., Original Application No.69 of 2020 (Sushil Bhatt Vs. Moon Beverages Limited and Ors.) and Appeal No.45 of 2020 (Devidas Khatri Vs. Union of India &Ors.) dated 25.02.2022] pertaining to drawal of groundwater unauthorizedly without obtaining permission, if any, required under the respective statutes.

¶866

(vii) They must also consider the question of guidelines issued by the Jal Shakthi for drawal of groundwater on the basis of the National Water Policy and if there is any violation found, that also can be considered by them while taking action against the erring units in accordance with law.

¶867

(viii) The units are directed to operate their units strictly complying with the environmental laws and conditions imposed in the Consent and other permissions granted without causing any pollution and also they are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Joint Committee for better performance of their units in an environment friendly manner.

¶868

Page 86 of 87

¶869

(ix) The right of the applicant in both these Original Applications to approach this Tribunal or any other forum in respect of future violation or pollution being caused on account of operation of their units to redress their grievance is left open.

¶870

(x) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the Original Applications and Appeal respectively.

¶871

(xi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents including the Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, and the Karnataka Ground Water Authority for their information and compliance of directions.

¶872

85. With the above observations and directions, both the Original Applications [O.A. Nos.27/2019 (SZ) & 254/2020 (SZ)] and the appeal [Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ)] are disposed of.

¶873

86. Since the Original Applications have been disposed of, pending interlocutory applications viz., I.A. No. 29/2019 (SZ) in O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) and I.A. No.124/2020 (SZ) in O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ) are also stands disposed of.

¶874

Sd/Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM

¶875

Sd/Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶876

O.A. No.27/2019 (SZ) Appeal No.05/2020 (SZ) O.A. No.254/2020 (SZ), 01^st July 2022. Mn.

¶877

Page 87 of 87

Sri Kishore Kumar v. Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kishore Kumar v. Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

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

One Earth One Life vs Ministry of Environment & Forest & Cc

University of Delhi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Anand Kumar Jha vs Union of India

University of Delhi vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Manoj Kumar Namdev So Genda Lal Namdev vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Prabhat Kumar Churiwala S/O Sri Srigopal Churiwala vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Govt. of India

Dheerendra vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Anand Duplex Limited vs Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (Uppcb)

P.Sundaravathanam vs Union of India

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the District Collector Chengalpattu

Vijesh Kumar v vs Moef

D Sakthivel vs the District Collector

V B R Menon vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Vijayan vs District Collector