NGT quashed a High Court appellate order that upholderated water cess levy. The Tribunal directed reassessment under the lower rate category without hearing, emphasizing compliance with Section 25 mandates the lower rate.
Impugned order dated 01.08.2006 and appeal dated 13.09.2007 quashed. Respondent directed to reassess cess under Section 3(2).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No. 07
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)
Appeal No.03/2024 (CZ)
Heavy Water Plant Kota
Appellant(s)
Vs.
Member Secretary, RSPCB
Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 13.11.2024
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant (s):
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. (With Mr. Harish Verma, Technical Officer, HVYR)
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
ORDER
and it was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4342 of 2008.
“HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4342/2008
Heavy Water Plant Kota, Government Of India Department Of Atomic Energy, Post Office Anushakti, Via Kota, Through The General Manager. ----Petitioner
Versus
The Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board,
1
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
4, Industrial Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ritika Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Order
04.01.2024
1. This petition was filed aggrieved of order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the Cess Appellate Authority under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is appealable before the National Green Tribunal (for short 'NGT'). He relies upon the decision of this Court dated 22.07.20t4 passed in SBCWP No.10068/2009 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Vs. Assessing Authority (Member Secretary) Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.), wherein while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Udyog Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), the matter was transferred to NGT for final disposal by passing following order:-
"Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 09.08.2012 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No.50/1998, writ petition is listed before the Court. In the aforesaid case, following directions have been given in Par 39 thus it is quoted hereinunder for ready reference:
"We find it imperative to place on record a caution for consideration of the Courts of competent jurisdiction that the cases filled and pending prior to coming into force of the NGT Act, involving questions of environmental laws and/or relation to any of the
2
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
seven statutes specified in scheme 1 of the NGT Act, should also be dealt with by the specialized tribunal that is that NGT, created under the provisions of the NGT Act. The Courts may be well advised to direct transfer of such cases to the NGT in its discretion, as it will be in the fitness of administration of justice."
Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the instant proceedings come within the purview of the law and/or an issue contemplated in the above judgment.
In this view of the matter, this petition stands transferred to the National Green Tribunal for disposal. For a period of four weeks, the interim order would be continued, if it exists.
The Registry would do the needful. The petition is disposed of on transfer."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to distinguish the case viz-a-viz order passed by the co-ordinate Bench.
4. The petition is transferred to NGT for disposal.”
3
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
4
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
is fully treated and has never violated the stringent specifications set by RPCB. Hence, RPCB should bring the water consumption under the classification of water gets polluted and the pollutants are easily biodegradable. The effluent water before discharge is exhaustively treated in treatment facilities and continuously monitored by pollution control and monitoring equipments, The plant is operated by highly qualified and trained personnel who have been authorised for Plant operation by AERB in line with the authorization procedure approved by AERB. Well thought out contingency plans has been worked out to avoid any environmental pollution. The Plant discharge has always remained well below the specified limits and has been meeting the standards set by RPCB.
and all through the Petitioner has been complying with the consent conditions. The rates applicable to the Petitioner are therefore, those indicated in subsection (2) of section 3 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1971 (for short the same may be referred to as the Act published in the Gazette of India Notification No, 53 of 1991 dated 17.12.1991. The same is Subsequently, revised by Notification of Govt. of India on 6.5.2003 are reproduced in the succeeding paragraph for ready
reference:-
| Sl. No. |
Category | Rates (Paisa/KL) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Industrial cooling, spraying in mine pits orboiler feeds. |
5.00 |
| 2 | DomesticPurpose | 2.00 |
| 3 | Processing whereby water polluted and the pollutants easily biodegradable. |
10.00 |
| 4 | Processing whereby water gets polluted and the pollutants are not easily biodegradable and are toxic. |
15.00 |
5
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
However, the rates applied by RPCB while working out "Cess" amount have not been consistent and have lately/mostly been those [indicated in sub-section (2A) of section 3 of the above mentioned Gazette of India notification No. 53 of 1991 dated 17.12.1991] which are meant for those industries which fail to comply with any of the provisions of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 or any of the standards laid down by the Central Government under the Environment Protection) Act 1986 i.e.:-
6
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
of Schedule 2 has not been applied in their cases and thus the point raised by the appellant has no consequence and is of no relevance.
the entire case of the Appellant is against the rate levied towards processing where water gets polluted and the pollutants are easily biodegradable category and in cases of "where water gets polluted and the pollutants are not easily biodegradable and are toxic in nature." It is clarified here that in the impugned order dated 01.08.2006, the rate that has been charged from the Appellant under the head of "where water gets polluted and the pollutants are biodegradable and not easily are toxic, inverted commas close is nil" and therefore most of the allegations of the Appellant regarding the impugned assessment order being wrong becomes irrelevant.
7
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. Moreover, while passing the above referred impugned Order dated 01.08.2006, no opportunity of hearing and/or to present the stand of the Appellant was provided to the Appellant. The Appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by appellate authority on dated 13.09.2007 before Hon’ble High Court, at Jaipur, Rajasthan in SB (Civil) WP No 4342/2008 whereof, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 07.09.2009 stayed the impugned order dated 13.09.2007.
8
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
higher rates mentioned in the Cess Assessment Orders are not applicable in case of the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, made payments under protest based on rates applicable to it i.e. as per schedule II of Section 3 (2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 by requesting the authorities in the Respondent Organisation through various communications and meetings since 1994 for effluents. may kindly be referred to in this regard.
9
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
subsequently also, as a sequel to which the effluents were classified for Cess Assessment as per rates indicated in column-2 of Schedule II of the Cess Act, 1977 (in accordance with Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the abovementioned Gazette Notification No. 53 of 1991 dated 17.12.1991). These rates had been applied by RPCB in their Cess Assessment Orders issued upto 30.03.1995, vide CAO No. 861 dated 30.03.1995. However, from 19.04.1996 onwards the classification of effluents seems to have been changed unilaterally by RPCB without intimating any reason for the same for example - criterion of categorizing from 211,2, 4 category, it was changed to 2ll, 2N2, 214 by RPCB upto the issue of CAO No. 2670 of 06.05.1997, after which again the entire classification was shifted to Column 3 Schedule II of the Cess Act, 1977 (applying Sub-Section 2.t of Section 3 of the Cess Act, 1977 to the Petitioner). Application of this classification/ yardstick has been continued till date.
So far as, Industrial cooling water is concerned the same is being used to cool process liquid through cooling water heat exchangers. The cooling water is subjected to only chlorination and no chemical dosing in the cooling tower is being done. The Petitioner is maintaining the cycle of concentration in the range of 1.3 to 1.5 and hence, the quality of blow down water remains similar as that of raw water drawn from Rana Pratap Sagar Lake.
10
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
added to this purified water. This water is further cooled to 35 degree centigrade in the Effluent Cooling Tower. The outlet of the cooling tower is Demineralised quality water, which is used for making boiler feed water, Cooling Tower makeup and remaining water is used for gardening and small quantity of water is discharged to the lake. The quality of Demineralised water discharged to lake is much better than standards specified by RPCB and other Statutory Bodies. Environmental Survey Lab, Rawatbhata, an independent agency, is regularly monitoring quality of this water for the specified parameters. Their analytical results also confirm that the quality of this water fully conforms to the specified quality. In view of this the discharged process water (effluent) should be categorized as non-toxic and bio-degradable. In this regard the Petitioner submit copies of results of Ambient Air Monitoring from the year 1995 to 2005 and further that the Heavy Water Plant, Kota has been awarded efficient water management by the Confederation of Indian Industries on 30.11.2007 for the efforts made by Heavy Water Plant, Kota.
11
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
reason in the assessment order that as to why this rebate should not have been granted to the Petitioner. Demanding amount at higher rates show that the Respondent has rejected the request of the Petitioner for granting rebate under section 7 of the Act, 1977 arbitrarily. Such deemed rejection is not sustainable in eye of law, as before rejecting such valid request no opportunity of hearing has been given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not been apprised about violation of any condition prescribed in section 7 of the Act,1977. Thus, it is manifest that in any manner the Respondent could not have withheld the order for granting rebate under section 7 of the Act, 1977. The Petitioner has time to time deposited the requisite amount to the Respondent.
“In fact the lake water used in the process first passes DM Plant and this demineralised water is used in the process for extraction of deuterium using H20-H2S exchange process. The water leaving Plant is fully treated before discharging it in the open terrain in Delay Tank Area.
12
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
The process outlet water is first stripped free of H2S to the level of < 0.5 PPM by using primary steam in waste stripper & the H2S evolved in waste stripper is put back in the exchange unit (Plant). The water leaving waste stripper has temperature the range of 75 deg.C. & is, therefore, further diluted and cooled with double the quantity of lake water before it is let into a pipeline leading to delay tank area. Incidentally, low level sulphide concentration further gets reduced first because dilution and then because of its reaction with dissolved Oxygen present in dilution water, during its travel in the pipeline upto delay tank. It is reaffirmed that HWP does not use any other chemicals in the process water or in the process which will lead to addition of any other pollutant to this discharge at the delay tank area.
Further at the Delay Tank Area outfall the Plant discharge gets further aerated. The last traces of H2S are removed due to atmospheric Oxidation, by the time discharge leaves our battery limits and after that the discharge water flows down 5 Κ.Μ. in open before it meets the lake water. The dissolved oxygen content in the discharge within the plant boundary after dilution is more than 5 PPM which further gets enhanced in the delay tank area at the outfall before it leaves our delay tank battery limits and this oxygen level is more than adequate for the survival of the aquatic life and also re-affirms the non-toxicity of HWP's discharge which can be endorsed as "Fully Treated Water". Considering the above mentioned aspects you may kindly arrange to issue necessary instructions
13
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
for acceptance of HWP’s discharge as "Fully Treated Waste Water".
Incidentally, it is mentioned that HWP’s domestic water consumption has now increased from 34 m3/hr. to 68 m3/hr for which two drinking water pumps are now being run continuously.
We are also making efforts to reduce the number of effluent outlets and in this regard the effluents from N2 Generation plants and Steam Generation Plant have been combined at one common discharge point with V-notch installation for flow measurement. The sample from outlets are being taken jointly by Kota Regional Office of RPCB & representative of HWP (K) and recently it was also done on 10th February, 1994.”
14
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
pollution control and monitoring equipments. The plant is operated by highly qualified and trained personnel and according to the norms and requires the cess rebate but in spite of the repeated request made by the appellant, the State Pollution Control Board has not considered the application and not made the proper classification of long standing problems which has been periodically raised before the State PCB. Again vide letter annexure-5 dated 03.05.2003 the plant has made request to the State Pollution Control Board with attachment of details that the values may be used for a calculation of water cess and the result of analysis carried out by Water Control and Analytic Lab of HWPK and formal appliances report by the State PCB and concerned condition has been sent to the State PCB with the request that the applicable rebate must be given to the appellant unit but the same has not been heard nor replied by the respondent to the State PCB. The report which has been attached shows that the water quality is within the prescribed limit as per parameter laid down by the State PCB.
15
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
March, 2000 to March 2005. During this period before March, 2003 there is no outstanding amount shown by RPCB in any CESS order. The outstanding amount shown only after December, 2002 CESS orders. Which shows that Outstanding amount is calculated only for 2 years (approx.) from 1.12.2002 to 31.03.2005, which shows inflated CESS charges.
16
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
amount of Rs. 21,21,692/-, then in terms of the penalty clauses mentioned in their cess bills, a maximum 48% interest or up to 100% of principal amount is liable to be paid by appellant /HWP (Kota) considering the twoyear period of penalty. In this way, Rs 31.40 Lakhs @ 48% or 42.42 Lakhs @ 100% of the principal amount would be required to be payable. However, the amount of penalty calculated by RSPCB not only appears inconsistent with reference to the penalty clauses mentioned by them in the bill but the same found to be incongruent as per the method and/or rationale of calculation shown below :-
TABLE-1
CESS charges and outstanding from 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2010
| Duration | Outstandin | g | Cess | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. no. |
From | To | Principle (A) |
Interest (B) |
Total (A+B) |
Charges (C) |
Payable Amount (A+B+C) |
|
| 1 | 01.01.2000 | 31.10.2000 | Nil | Nil | Nil | 666207 | 666207 | |
| 2 | 01.11.2000 | 28.02.2001 | Nil | Nil | Nil | 430864 | 430864 | |
| 3 | 01.05.2001 | 28.02.2002 | Nil | Nil | Nil | 980385 | 980385 | |
| 4 | 01.03.2002 | 31.03.2002 | Nil | Nil | Nil | 95173 | 95173 | |
| 5 | 01.12.2002 | 28.02.2003 | 9567520 | Nil | Nil | 203617 | 9771137 | |
| 6 | 01.01.2005 | 31.03.2005 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 438011 | 36859749 | O |
| 7 | 01.07.2005 | 31.10.2005 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 533711 | 36955449 | /S |
| 8 | 01.05.2006 | 30.06.2006 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 326976 | 36748714 | am |
| 9 | 01.08.2006 | 30.11.2006 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 681121 | 37102859 | oun |
| 10 | 01.03.2007 | 31.03.2007 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 181979 | 36603717 | t |
| 11 | 01.04.2007 | 30.04.2007 | 7297020 | 10913849 | 18210869 | 176028 | 36597766 | |
| 12 | 01.10.2007 | 31.12.2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 511779 | 511779 | |
| 13 | 01.03.2008 | 31.03.2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 95809 | 95809 | |
| 14 | 01.01.2008 | 29.02.2008 | 511779 | 0 | 511779 | 202286 | 1225844 | |
| 15 | 01.03.2008 | 31.03.2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 95809 | 95809 | N |
| 16 | 01.04.2008 | 31.10.2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 668569 | 668569 | o co |
| 17 | 01.11.2008 | 31.12.2008 | 1478444 | 122188 | 1600632 | 201316 | 3402580 | nsiste |
| 18 | 01.01.2010 | 31.03.2010 | 0 | 15521 | 15521 | 66760 | 97802 | ncy |
| 19 | 01.04.2010 | 30.04.2010 | 66760 | 15521 | 82281 | 92677 | 257239 |
17
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
TABLE-2 Summary report on CESS charges by RPCB and deposit detail by HWPK
| Sr. No. |
CESS Order no. | Asses Per |
sment iod |
CESS charges by RPCB in Rs. (A) |
Amount deposited by HWPK in Rs. (B) |
Differenc e in Rs. (A-B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 145/02-03/1 | 01.03.03 | 31.03.03 | 74260 | 24753 | 49507 |
| 2 | 195/03-04/1 | 01.04.03 | 31.05.03 | 90095 | 0 | 90095 |
| 3 | 196/03-04/1 | 06.05.03 | 31.07.03 | 582793 | 340600 | 242193 |
| 4 | 272/2003-20048/Gr. I | 01.08.03 | 31.08.03 | 106377 | 0 | 106377 |
| 5 | 274/2003-20048/Gr. I | 01.09.03 | 29.02.04 | 788879 | 450857 | 338022 |
| 6 | 44/O4-O5/Gr. I | 01.03.04 | 31.03.04 | 163327 | 0 | 163327 |
| 7 | 45/O4-O5/Gr. I | 01.04.04 | 30.06.04 | 468295 | 0 | 468295 |
| 8 | 77/O4-O5/Gr. I | 01.07.04 | 31.12.04 | 898049 | 451814 | 446235 |
| 9 | 19/05-06/Gr. I | 01.01.05 | 31.03.05 | 438011 | 220370 | 217641 |
| 3610086 | 1488394 | 2121692 |
18
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
under category (III) of Schedule II of Cesse Act. According to the memo of appeal, there are two major categories under which water is consumed by the Plant (a) Industrial cooling water and (b) process water. Regarding industrial cooling water, the Plant's contention is that it is subject only to chlorination and not chemical dozing. The quality of blow down. water from cooling remains nearly the same as raw water. Regarding water used in the process, the plant's contention is that no contamination is added to this water. It is cooled upto 35°C In a recently installed cooling tower and its quality is as good as de mineralized quality and most of it is used within the plant for cooling tower make up and gardening. Therefore, their contention is that the process water effluent should be categorized as non-toxic bio degradable under item (III) of Schedule II of the Cess Act. The appellant has contended that since it is complying with Section 25 of the Water Act and the standards under the EP Act, 1986, the cess rate should be under Section 3(2) of the Cess Act. It has also contended that it is also entitled to rebate under Section 7 as it has installed treatment plant. Violation of any of these provisions has never been conveyed to the appellant. Appellant has not been given. any opportunity of hearing before passing the assessment order and before denying rebate. The appellant has repeatedly contended that the respondent has not taken any action for proper categorization of water drawn by the appellant and also for re-assessment of the past cess assessment orders w.e.f 26.1.92. The appellant has referred to meetings held with the Assessing Authority dated 24.12.05 and 10.3.06 in this regard.
19
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
Pradesh is being assessed as lower rate under Section 3(2) of the Cess Act and since the plant at present is also being run with same pollution control measures, the appellant is entitled to same rate of assessment as is being done in other heavy plants.
20
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
the respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing, it comes as a penal rates and it requires mandatory hearing.
21
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
“Section 2
(a)"local authority" means a municipal corporation or a municipal council (by whatever name called) or a cantonment board or any other body, entrusted with the duty of supplying water under the law by or under which it is constituted;
(c)[ "industry" includes any operation or process, or treatment and disposal system, which consumes water or gives rise to sewage effluent or trade effluent, but does not include any hydel power unit;]”
follows :-
“Section 3
Levy and collection of cess .-(1) There shall be levied and collected a cess for the purposes of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) and utilisation thereunder.
(2)The cess under sub-section (1) shall be payable by-
(a)every person carrying on any [industry]; and
(b)every local authority, and shall be calculated on the basis of the water consumed by such person or local authority, as the case may be, for any of the purposes specified in column (1) of Schedule II, at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, specify.
[(2-A) Where any person carrying on any ] [Inserted by Act 53 of 1991, Section 2 (w.e.f. 26.1.1992). ][industry] [ Substituted by Act 19 of 2003, Section 3, for " specified industry" (w.e.f. 6.5.2003).][or any local authority consuming water for domestic purpose liable to pay cess fails to comply with any of the provisions of section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) or any of the standards laid
22
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
down by the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), cess shall be, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of this section, calculated and payable at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in column (3) of Schedule II, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, specify.] [Inserted by Act 53 of 1991, Section 2 (w.e.f. 26.1.1992). ]
(3)Where any local authority supplies water to any person carrying on any [industry] [ Substituted by Act 19 of 2003, Section 3, for " specified industry" (w.e.f. 6.5.2003).] or to any other local authority and such person or other local authority is liable to pay cess [under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2-A)] [ Substituted by Act 53 of 1991, Section 2, for " under sub-section (2)" (w.e.f. 26.1.1992).] in respect of the water so supplied, then, notwithstanding anything contained [in those sub-sections] [ Substituted by Act 53 of 1991, Section 2, for " in that subsection" (w.e.f. 26.1.1992).], the local authority first mentioned shall not be liable to pay such cess in respect of such water.”
23
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF RPS LAKE (RAW) WATER AND FULLY TREATED WASTE WATER FROM DELAY TANK BOUNDARY
| S.No. | Parameters | **Raw Water ** | Point-A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | pH | 8.35 | 8.5 |
| 2. | ConductivityK(uS/cm) | 265 | 210 |
| 3. | TDS (mg/1) | 177 | 140 |
| 4. | Total Hardness (ppm as CaCO3) |
88 | 66 |
| 5. | Ca-Hardness (ppm) as CaCO3) |
50 | 42 |
| 6. | Ma-Hardness (ppm as CaCO3) |
38 | 24 |
| 7. | Dissolved Oxygen(ppm) | 7.8 | 5.8 |
| 8. | Chloride (ppm) | 17.2 | 12.9 |
| 9. | Silica as (5102) ppm | 9.3 | 7.0 |
| 10. | P-Alkalinity (ppm as CaCO3) |
2.1 | 4.1 |
| 11. | M-Alkalinity (ppm as CaCO3) |
92.7 | 70.0 |
| 12. | TotalSulphide (ppb) | <10 | <10 |
| 13. | UndissociatedH2S (ppb) | <1 | <1 |
| 14. | Sulphate (ppm) | 29.6 | 26.6 |
| 15. | Temperature | - | 40o C |
| 16. | BOD(at 20°C 5 days) (ppm) | 0.58 | - |
| 17. | COD(ppm) | 11.89 | 3.96 |
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF RPS LAKE (RAW) WATER AND FULLY TREATED WASTE WATER FROM DELAY TANK BOUNDARY
| S.No. | Parameters | **Raw Water ** | Point-A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | pH | 8.6 | 8.5 |
| 2. | ConductivityK(uS/cm) | 214 | 157 |
| 3. | TDS (mg/1) | 143 | 105 |
| 4. | Total Hardness (ppm as CaCO3) |
82 | 57 |
| 5. | Ca-Hardness (ppm) as CaCO3) |
54 | 40 |
| 6. | Mo-Hardness (ppm as CaCO3) |
28 | 17 |
| 7. | Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) | 7.6 | 5.3 |
| 8. | Chloride (ppm) | 14.18 | 12.05 |
| 9. | Silica as (5102) ppm | 8.66 | 7.2 |
| 10. | P-Alkalinity (ppm as CaCO3) |
7.05 | 3.8 |
| 11. | M-Alkalinity (ppm as CaCO3) |
96.35 | 59 |
| 12. | TotalSulphide (ppb) | <10 | <10 |
| 13. | Undissociated H2S (ppb) | <1 | <1 |
| 14. | Sulphate (ppm) | 6.91 | 5.2 |
| 15. | Temperature | - | 40oC |
| 16. | BOD(at 20°C 5 days) (ppm) | 0.61 | 0.02 |
| 17. | COD (ppm) | 12.05 | 3.82 |
| 18. | Turbidity (units) | 1.8 | 0.22 |
24
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
subsection 2 of section 3 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess (Amendment) Act, 1991 which is stated below :-
(Schedule II) (See section 3)
| Pur con |
pose for which water is sumed |
Maximum rate under sub-section (2) of section 3 |
Maximum rate u sub-section (2-A section 3 |
nder ) of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
| 1. | Industrial cooling, spraying in mine pits or boiler feeds |
Five paise per kilolitre | Ten paise kilolitre |
per |
| 2. | Domestic purpose | Two paise per kilolitre | Three paise kilolitre |
per |
| 3. | Processing whereby water gets polluted ad the pollutants are- (i) Easily biodegradable; or (ii) Non-toxic; or (iii) Both non-toxic and easily biodegradable |
Ten paise per kilolitre | Twenty paise kilolitre |
per |
| 4. | Processing whereby water gets polluted and the pollutants are i. Not easily biodegradable; or ii. toxic; or iii. both toxic and not easily biodegradable |
Fifteen paise per kilolitre |
Thirty paise kilolitre |
per |
notice issued in 2006 where at column-4 the water consumption is shown as zero. The State PCB was required to calculate the water cess in accordance with maximum rate under subsection 2 of section 3 given in schedule 2 but in place of calculating this clause it was calculated in accordance with sub section 2 (a) of section 3 which was wrong calculation and as per Cess Act, 1977 (2) the same has been deleted and subsumed under GST Act.
25
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
26
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
which is categorized as toxic has been shown as zero. Since, there is no toxic water thus, no calculation can be done in that column.
| Physical Properties | Normal Water | Heavy Water |
|---|---|---|
| Molecular weight | 18.015 | 20.028 |
| Meting pt. °C | 0 | 3.81 |
| Boiling pt. °C | 100.0 | 101.42 |
| Triple pt. °C | 0.01 | 3.82 |
| Max. Density at | 3.984 | 11.185 |
| Temp °C | (0.99997 g/cm3) | (1.106 g/cm3) |
| Density at 0 °C in g/cm3 |
0.99701 | 1.1044 |
| Moderation Ratio | 58 | 21000 |
| Refractive Index | 1.33 | 1.328 |
i. Uses of Heavy Water
Heavy Water is mainly used as moderator and coolant in PHWR type of nuclear reactors which uses natural uranium (92U238 having about 0.7% of 92U235) as a fuel. Fission of natural uranium produces fast neutrons which need to be slowed down so as to increase the fission cross-section of the neutrons for further fission. Hydrogen is the best material for slowing down neutrons due to its
27
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
low atomic weight, however, it has higher cross-section for neutron absorption as well and hence low moderation ratio. On the other hand, deuterium has lower absorption cross-section and hence high moderation ratio. So, Heavy water is a better moderator for natural uranium reactor since deuterium has very little capacity to absorb neutron.
Further, deuterium is used in nuclear fusion reactor in which 1 kg of heavy water can provide fusion energy equivalent to thermal energy of 6*106 kg of coal. Heavy water is also used as a tracer for elucidation of the mechanism of enzyme action. Virus growth in heavy water was also studied and found very little growth which opened the door for use of heavy water as a solvent in polio vaccine as deuterium have no adverse effects on human being.
ii. Methods of Heavy Water Production
Separation of heavy water from natural water and synthesis of heavy water from hydrogen compounds is based on various properties of deuterium oxide/deuterium. Even though protium and deuterium have similar qualitative behavior, the small quantitative difference in chemical and physical properties helps in separation of heavy water/deuterium from natural water/hydrogen. As the presence of deuterium in natural water is very little, separation cost is exorbitantly high. There are various ways for its production:
1. Reversible Process
2. Irreversible Process
The reversible process can further be divided in two principles.
1. Chemical Exchange Process
2. Distillation
The irreversible processes are also classified as follows:
1. Diffusion
2. Thermal Diffusion
3. Gravitational
4. Crystallization
5. Biological
6. Photochemical
28
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
7. Absorption
8. Electrolysis
All irreversible processes require much high energy and hence are not economical for large scale production facilities. So, reversible processes are exploited on a large scale for production of heavy water.
iii. Production of Heavy Water in India
India is able to produce nuclear grade heavy water for requirement of its nuclear reactors. The Nangal plant was operative on electrolysis principle which has been decommissioned. All other plants are producing heavy water with the help of chemical exchange and distillation principle applied in a combined manner. The term chemical exchange refers to isotopic exchange of deuterium and protium. Isotopic exchange takes place due to different values of equilibrium constant at different temperatures.
Equilibrium constant is characteristic of a chemical reaction which decides shift of reaction to occur in a forward or backward direction depending upon temperature. Moreover, chemical exchange process is further divided into two processes:
1. Mono-thermal process
2. Bi-thermal process
In India, heavy water production has been carried out with the help of wide varieties of processes including mono-thermal chemical exchange, bi-thermal chemical exchange & distillation and electrolysis.”
expert attending the Tribunal are that at the point of demand of notice there was no outstanding amount payable by the appellant plant and respondent State PCB has arbitrarily calculated the amount on the basis of wrong sub section on the change rate without giving an opportunity of hearing and thus, the cess amount or interest requires to be re-assessed in accordance with Sub subject 2 of Section 3 of Water Cess Act 1977.
29
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM
13th November, 2024 Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) PN
30
Appeal No. 03/2024(CZ) Heavy Water Plant Kota Vs. Member Secretary, RSPCB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is liable to pay water cess under subsection (2A) of Section 3 when it complies with pollution standards and treats effluent effectively?
Whether the State Pollution Control Board acted arbitrarily by levying higher cess rates without providing an opportunity of hearing?
Whether the appellant is entitled to a rebate under Section 7 of the Cess Act?
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Heavy Water Plant Kota
Member Secretary, RSPCB
Sheo Kumar Singh
Afroz Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
