Allowed

Maruti Cottex Limited v. Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

NGT7 Nov 2024Appeal No. 62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an appeal against a closure order issued by the Telangana SPCB to a textile unit. Finding that the appellant had complied with most conditions and agreed to rectify remaining defects like camera connectivity, the Tribunal set aside the closure order while directing strict future compliance with effluent treatment and monitoring protocols.

What did the court decide?

The impugned closure order dated 31.08.2024 is set aside. The appellant is directed to comply with all conditions issued by the Board and ensure ZLD operation.

Maruti Cottex Limited vs Telanagana State Pollution… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.7:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 07^th day of November 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Appeal No.62 of 2024 (SZ) & I.A. No.112 of 2024 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Maruthi Cottex Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Choutuppal, Yadadri District, Telangana – 508 252.

¶8

...Appellant (s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

Telangana State Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Member Secretary A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar, Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 018. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant (s): M/s. Ambili Menon, K.N. Shanthi, Priyadharshini. S and Rajeshwari. For Respondent(s): Ms. Lavanya represented Mr. T. Sai Krishnan.

¶11

CORAM :

¶12

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶13

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

J U D G E M E N T

¶15

1. The above appeal is directed against the closure order dated 31.08.2024 issued by the Telangana SPCB under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide Order No.NLG-10/TGPCB/TF/HO/2024-929.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

2. The appellant herein is the textile processing unit operating in Yadadri – Bhuvanagiri District, State of Telangana. The appellant got the Consent to Operate from the Telangana SPCB, who is the sole respondent herein, for 30 years. The appellant also upgraded its Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) in 2016 and installed a new processing unit in 2017 and 2020 with upgraded machines.

¶18

3. Pursuant to the direction from this Tribunal, the CPCB caused an inspection of the premises and gave certain suggestions. The appellant also complied with all the suggestions, except fixing the cameras around the industries, which should be connected with the Telangana SPCB’s server for monitoring the discharge of ETP.

¶19

4. Based on the report that was filed in Original Application No.80 of 2020 (SZ) , where there was a complaint against the appellant herein and other two pharmaceutical companies, the Tribunal had directed the respondents therein for issuance of the closure order for non-compliance of the suggestions already made by the Telangana SPCB. Based on the same, without verifying the factual position, it is alleged that the impugned closure order was issued. Challenging the same, the above appeal is filed.

¶20

5. The Telangana SPCB has filed its report dated 16.09.2024, in which, it is stated that pursuant to the inspection of the Telangana SPCB, the appellant unit was directed to augment the ETP, RO and MEE system to treat LTDS and HTDS effluent and ensure the adequate capacity of the treatment units. In view of the inadequacy of ETP to implement the ZLD system and non-compliance with the Board directives, the Telangana SPCB issued a closure order on 31.08.2024.

¶21

6. The second report was filed by the Telangana SPCB on 03.11.2024 and made the following conclusions:-

¶22

“1. The industry is segregating effluents into LTDS and HTDS and provided separate conveying drains to convey the effluents to the ETPs. The industry shall provide closed pipelines for conveyance of effluents to collection tanks of ETP or shall increase the height of the side walls of the drain to avoid mixing of rain water with effluents till the closed pipeline is provided.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

The industry has provided separate facilities for collection & treatment of both the HTDS & LTDS effluents with capacities 800 KLD for HTDS and 500 KLD for LTDS.

¶25

As per the analysis reports submitted by the RO, Nalgonda for LTDS treatment system, it was observed that the ETP provided for LTDS is functioning properly.

¶26

The industry shall rectify the operational issues with the MEE & ATFD and shall collect the ATFD output in dry form only.

¶27

The industry may be directed to operate the LTDS and HTDS treatment systems to treat LTDS and HTDS effluents separately as the treatment capacities for LTDS and HTDS are sufficient.

¶28

With regard to industry’s submission that whenever they are running the HTDS process, the LTDS process cannot be run and vice versa, the argument cannot be accepted as the industry shall operate all the processes simultaneously that generate HTDS and LTDS effluents.”

¶29

7. From the above conclusion, it was found that Points (5) and (6) are mutually contrary, as it was claimed that the operations of the LTDS and HTDS cannot be done simultaneously.

¶30

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Telangana SPCB insisted that the ATFD output, which is now collected in the slurry form, should be collected in dry form only. It is also stated that the functioning of the LTDS is proper.

¶31

9. As the appellant unit had not complied with some of the conditions imposed by the Telangana SPCB and the functioning of the unit came to a grinding halt because of the impugned order, the appellant unit was given time to rectify the defects and report to the Telangana SPCB for inspection.

¶32

10. Accordingly, the unit was inspected on 06.11.2024 in the presence of its Manager and other officials. Based on the observations made during the inspection, the Telangana SPCB had recommended for revocation on the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The industry shall segregate the effluents into LTDS and HTDS.

¶34

(ii) The industry shall treat the LTDS & HTDS effluents in dedicated Effluent Treatment Plants provided for both the LTDS & HTDS effluents, as stipulated in the CFO & HWA order dated 28.09.2022.

¶35

(iii) The industry shall rectify the operational issues in MEE & ATFD so as to collect the ATFD output in dry form only within one month time and submit the compliance to the Board.

¶36

(iv) The industry shall provide collection tank of sufficient capacity to collect the HTDS effluents near process area

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

with acid proof lining. The industry shall provide motor pump to pump the HTDS effluents and provide HDPE pipelines for conveyance of HTDS effluents to ETP from the collection tank within three months and submit the compliance to the Board.

¶39

(v) The industry shall stop using the drains once the closed pipeline is installed.

¶40

(vi) The industry shall maintain IP camera with PAN, TILT Zoom, 5x or above focal length, with night vision capability at ETP area (HTDS& LTDS ETP systems), boiler area focusing chimney and focusing RO Permeate flow meters and shall connect to TGPCB server within one week and submit the compliance to the Board.

¶41

(vii) The industry shall not discharge the treated or untreated effluents within and outside the premises under any circumstances.

¶42

(viii) The industry shall furnish Bank Guarantee as per the Board norms towards the compliance of the above conditions with validity period of one year.

¶43

11. Similarly, the appellant also had filed a report dated 06.11.2024, stating that the unit has provided flow meters for LTDS, HTDS treatment plants, UF inlet and outlet, all stages of RO inlet and permeate, MEE inlet, condensate, etc. as per the CFO. The appellant unit also requested for the online connecting system for flow meters to be connected to the Telangana SPCB’s server. As per the advice of the Telangana SPCB, the unit has stated that they have installed the flow meters at all stages and enclosed photographs. The cameras installed at the ETP area, boiler area, production area and main gate area, as per the advice of the Telangana SPCB, are yet to be connected with the Telangana SPCB’s server and a letter has been submitted in that regard by the appellant unit on 28.10.2024.

¶44

12. Hence, the Telangana SPCB is directed to consider the above letter and give a connection to the Telangana SPCB’s server at the earliest.

¶45

13. Regarding the compliance of the above conditions, the Telangana SPCB also insisted on furnishing the Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards compliance with the above conditions with a validity period of 01 year. The unit also has agreed to furnish the above-said Bank Guarantee.

¶46

14. From the report of the Telangana SPCB referred to above, except for the cameras being connected to the Telangana SPCB’s server, all the other conditions are either complied or

¶47

Page 4 of 5

¶48

agreed to be complied with by the appellant unit within the timeline stipulated by the Telangana SPCB. As the appellant unit has already complied with certain conditions and agreed to comply with the other suggestions/recommendations made by the Telangana SPCB within the stipulated time and since the Telangana SPCB also recommended for revocation of the closure order, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned order of closure and permit the appellant unit to run.

¶49

15. So, in view of the above, the appeal [Appeal No.62 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned closure order dated 31.08.2024 issued by the Telangana SPCB vide Order No.NLG10/TGPCB/TF/HO/2024-929 is set aside. The appellant unit is directed to comply with all the conditions issued by the Telangana SPCB and ensure the operation of the ZLD at all times.

¶50

Consequently, the interlocutory application [I.A.
No.112 of 2024 (SZ)] is closed.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶51

Appeal No.62/2024 (SZ) I.A. No.112/2024 (SZ) 07^th November, 2024. Mn.

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Maruti Cottex Limited v. Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Cottex Limited v. Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Drupad Malik vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Rajasthan

Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Khatik vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment

Heavy Water Plant Kota vs Member Secretary Rspcb

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

Mr Shiyal Hamirbhai Rudabhai vs Ms Nirma Cement Ltd. through Managing Director

Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Gunashekhar vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Tnpcb) and Another

Dr. Sushmitha vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Maruti Cottex Limited vs Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

Tejah Balantrapu vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

News Item Titled "Uprooting of Trees in Ecr Slope in Violation of Green Tribunal Orders" Published in the Dinamalar Chennai Edition Dated 06.05.2024 vs the Chief Secretary Tamil Nadu