Dismissed

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

NGT14 May 2024IA No. 48/2024 in Appeal No. 18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench dismissed the appeal filed by an industry against an order mandating Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) instead of CETP. The Court held that the order had legal force given the non-conforming CETP location and the appellant's prior long-term ZLD operations, rejecting claims of economic unviability.

What did the court decide?

The substantial question regarding the ZLD facility was decided against the appellant, dismissing the appeal and rejecting the prayer for stay.

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.8

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Appeal No.18/2024(WZ) I.A. No.48/2024(WZ)

¶6

M/s Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

¶10

….Respondent

¶11

Date of hearing: 14.05.2024

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.01.2024, passed by the Respondent – MPCB, whereby under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, following directions have been issued to the appellant to be complied with:-

¶16

“ 1. Industry shall follow the treated effluent disposal path as Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) & not CETP.

¶17

2. Industry shall achieve ZLD and not to discharge the treated effluent into CETP henceforth.

¶18

3. Industry shall submit Bank Guarantee of Rs.1.0 lakh in favor of Regional Officer, Navi-Mumbai within period of 15 days towards compliance of above points.”

¶19

By the present appeal, above-mentioned three directions have been prayed to be quashed by the appellant.

¶20

The learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to page

¶21

no.19 of the paper book, which is Consent to Establish dated 14.08.2015

¶22

Page 1 of 7

¶23

granted by the Respondent- MPCB to the appellant for Fish Processing and Cold Storage, in which serial no.3 (iv) provides the condition of Trade Effluent Disposal, wherein it is mentioned that “The treated effluent shall be reused in the process to the maximum extent & excess sent to CETP for further treatment. There shall not be any discharge outside the factory premises”. It is further submitted by him that this Consent to Establish was granted to the appellant after it had obtained the membership of Taloja CETP Co-operative Society Ltd. on 27.07.2015 and a proof thereof is annexed as Annexure- A-2 at page no.18 of the paper book. Thereafter, he has drawn our attention to page no.191 of the paper book where Consent to Operate dated 30.10.2017 granted by the Respondent- MPCB to the appellant is annexed, wherein it was directed that the Industry shall achieve Zero Liquid Discharge as unit is located in Non-conforming CETP as per the Board’s Circular dated 21.09.2015. Pursuant to the said Consent to Operate, the appellant had set up ZLD facility at its premises in the year 2017, though it is not stated in the present appeal.

¶24

Thereafter, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for appellant to the latest Consent to Operate dated 25.05.2023 granted by the Respondent- MPCB to the appellant up to the period 31.08.2033, in which under Schedule- 1: Terms & Conditions for Compliance of Water Pollution Control are provided, wherein para no.1(C) provides the condition of Trade Effluent Disposal, wherein it is mentioned that the industry shall become member of CETP. Treated effluent shall be recycled & reused to the maximum extent and if any remains then thereafter, the same shall be discharged to CETP. There shall not be any discharge outside the factory premises. At this stage, the learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that this condition did not incorporate that the ZLD facility had to be there in the premises of appellant. Therefore, he was following this direction as of now and that the Respondent-MPCB is

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

now claiming that this condition was erroneously mentioned because it did not contain ZLD to be adopted by the appellant because it was a typographical error as it was omitted from being mentioned that the ZLD was to be adopted by the appellant.

¶27

The learned counsel for appellant has also argued that the Taloja CETP Co-operative Society Ltd., of which the appellant is a member, was not running properly for a long time and for that no steps have been taken by the MPCB and only because of that not functioning properly, this condition is being imposed through the impugned order that the appellant should adopt the ZLD facility, which is too expensive to be adopted for an industry like the appellant, which is already running in losses. Besides he has also submitted that as per the Notification dated 01.06.2020 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the Industry of the appellant is falling under the Medium Scale Enterprise because its investment in plant and machinery is approximately 45.7 Crores. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order deserves to be set aside because the same has been passed arbitrarily.

¶28

From the side of Respondent- MPCB, reply affidavit dated 02.04.2024 has been filed, wherein it is recorded that the MPC Board had granted Consent to Establish for operation of Fish Processing and Cold Storage under Orange/LSI, subject to certain terms and conditions as provided in letter dated 14.08.2015. But at Annexure- 1, where this letter is annexed, we find that the category mentioned therein is Orange/SSI (SSI is written in handwriting). As per the said consent to establish, the condition for the disposal path was the treated effluent, which should be reused in the process to the maximum extent and excess should be sent to the CETP for further treatment. The National Green Tribunal (West Zone) in the Original Application No.07/2013 (WZ) vide order dated

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

02/07/2015 had reproduced directions issued by CPCB “Not to permit expansion/ establishment of the industrial units in the areas where the associate CETPs are not complying with the required standards and where such CETPs do not have adequate hydraulic load capacities”. In this regard, the MPC Board had also issued a Circular dated 21/09/2015 clearly stating therein that in compliance with the orders issued by NGT and Hon'ble High Court dated 02/07/2015 and 13/08/2015 respectively, the Board had decided not to consider expansion/establishment of the industrial units in the area of these CETPs, except units which had Zero Liquid Discharge and no pollution potential. A copy of the order of NGT and the Circular dated 21/09/2015 are annexed at page nos.115 to 175 of the paper book and page nos.111 to 112 of the paper book respectively, which provide as mentioned above.

¶31

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent- MPCB that since on 14/08/2015, the appellant’s industry received Consent to Establish, though it did not initiate the operation of the fish processing and cold storage or machinery installations, the circular issued by MPC Board dated 21/09/2015 (mentioned in paragraph 3 above) is squarely applicable to the said industry as the said Industry is part of Taloja MIDC and Taloja CETP, which was not complying with the consented standards.

¶32

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent- MPCB that the appellant had submitted an application for 1^st Consent to Operate dated 04/07/2017, for which industry made payment on 01/09/2017 to MPC Board. In this application, the appellant clearly stated therein that industry had put into place the zero liquid discharge effluent treatment scheme. It is further submitted that MPCB had granted 1^st Consent to Operate, which is annexed as Annexure-4 at page nos.191 to 194 of the paper book. Thereafter, the appellant had applied

¶33

Page 4 of 7

¶34

for the renewal of consent to operate, for which MPC Board had granted consent to operate for operation of Fish Processing and Cold storage, subject to certain terms and conditions vide letter dated 30.05.2023, which is valid upto 30.08.2033, under the category Orange/LSI, which has not been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the same has been wrongly granted under the category Orange/LSI. A copy of said consent to operate dated 30.05.2023 is annexed an Annexure-7 at page nos.195 to 197 of the paper book.

¶35

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the Respondent- MPCB that in October 2023, based on the internal assessment of the consent dated 30/05/2023 and looking to the fact that the Taloja CETP is noncompliant towards achieving the consent standards for effluent discharge, the MPCB’s officials visited the Appellant’s industry and observed that the appellant’s industry is having full-fledged ZLD treatment scheme. Therefore, the MPCB had issued directions to appellant’s industry on 09/10/2023, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-5 of the Appeal towards achievement of zero liquid discharge as per 1^st consent to operate granted by MPC Board dated 30 /10/2017. It is also mentioned that the MPCB was proposing to amend the Consent to Operate dated 25/05/2023 to amend the disposal path as CETP. Annexure-8 annexed with this affidavit is a visit report dated 15/03/2024 observing that the appellant is having the machinery to achieve ZLD. Therefore, it is submitted that question of quashing the impugned order dated 16/01/2024 does not arise since the appellant is following what was directed in the impugned direction dated 16/01/2024.

¶36

Against this affidavit, the appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 09.05.2024, wherein it is stated in para no.6 that the appellant is engaged only in fish cleaning activity, in which the water, which remains

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

after cleaning, is the sea water. In zero liquid discharge process, the answering Respondent is being directed to do the treatment of the remaining sea water. In the said process, the Appellant has to evaporate it and for that, electricity is required and there is lot of cleaning to be done on continuous basis. The appellant cannot afford the expenditure to be incurred on the electricity for such type of operations. The water, which is being discharged, is always below 250 COD, which means it is well within the consented parameters. The appellant is not seeking any relaxation but the process of Zero Liquid Discharge is not economically viable to the appellant for the fish processing activities.

¶39

It is also argued orally by the learned counsel for appellant that there is no assessment made of any kind of pollution happening on account of the activity being conducted by the appellant’ industry, therefore, imposing of the ZLD to be operational in the premises of appellant is highly objectionable and the same needs to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶40

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record, we find that as per the Notification dated 01.06.2020 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the industry in question would fall in the category of Medium Enterprise, as per the plant and machinery equipment investment being close to approximately 45.7 Crores, which is being admitted by the learned counsel for appellant, and not under the category of Small Enterprise. The 1^st Consent to Operate, which was granted in the year 2017 i.e. on 30.10.2017, is annexed at page nos.191 to 205 of the paper book, which reveals that the same was granted under the category of Orange/Medium Scale Industry (MSI) and the condition, which was imposed under Sub-Clause 3, is specified, saying that the appellant’ industry shall achieve ZLD as the unit was

¶41

Page 6 of 7

¶42

found located in non-conforming CETP. Thereafter, this industry continues to operate the ZLD facility for a long time till now. Even today, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for Respondent- MPCB submits that when the site inspection was made, it was found that the ZLD facility was operational but it appears that the appellant is seeking exemption for the same looking to the heavy expenditure being incurred, which is being said that the appellant is not able to afford. We are not inclined to accept that view looking to the activity which the appellant is involved in.

¶43

In view of above, we do not find any force in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

We express our displeasure on the casual approach being adopted by the MPCB in issuing the consent because the plea is being taken that there are several typographical errors committed at their end because somewhere it is mentioned that the appellant is granted consent under the category of Small Scale Industry; somewhere, it is mentioned as Medium Scale Industry; and somewhere it is mentioned as Large Scale Industry. Without referring to the exact investment criteria, on what basis, the same were assessed to be falling in the said respective category. MPCB should be careful in future while granting consents.

¶45

The learned counsel for appellant has prayed that this order may be stayed for 30 days but we are not inclined to accept his prayer.

¶46

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶47

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶48

May 14, 2024 Appeal No.18/2024(WZ) I.A. No.48/2024(WZ) P.Kr

¶49

Page 7 of 7

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra 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

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Hemraj Meena vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority

Kasim Alayan vs the Water/Air Appellate Authority

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Mahesh Chandra Saxena vs NCT of Delhi

Mr. Santosh Vishnu Kadam vs M/S Shivsiddhi Redimix Concrete

Shri Dinesh Kharade vs State of Maharashtra through Pune Municipaal Corporation

Aryavart Foundation vs M/S Ria Cetp Co.Op. Society Ltd.

Seasaga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Premjibhai Kerasiya vs Harilal Kerasiya

Anuj Abhay Deshpande vs Pune Municipal Corporation