Disposed

Naveen Kumar Jalagam v. State of Telangana

NGT22 Nov 2024Original Application No. 90/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought closure of parboiled rice mills in Komarabanda alleging pollution. Tribunal noted SPCB reports showed mills mostly shifted to raw/steam milling. directed SPCB to strictly monitor, enforce compliance, and reject new consents without compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed Telangana SPCB to continue monitoring, enforce norms, and reject new consents without environmental compensation.

Naveen Kumar Jalagam vs State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.1:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Friday, the 22^nd day of November 2024.

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

Original Application No.90 of 2021 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Naveen Kumar Jalagam

¶8

S/o. Ranga Rao Jalgama Aged about 43 years, Residing at Plot No.8, KLR Avenue, Komarabanda, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206. …Applicant(s) Versus 1. State of Telangana Through the Chief Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 022.

¶9

2. Telangana State Pollution Control Board Through the Member Secretary A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 018.

¶10

3. District Collector Suryapet, Collector Office, Suryapet – 508 213.

¶11

4. M/s. Raja Rajeshwara Parboiled Industries and Export Limited, Through the Managing Director Survey No.185/5, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶12

5. M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Rice Industries Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Survey No.242/4, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶13

6. M/s. Lakshmi Ganesh Parboiled Rice Industry Through the Managing Director Survey No.230/1A, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶14

Page 1 of 9

¶15

7. M/s. APR Rice Industry Through the Managing Director (Formerly M/s. Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Rice Industries)

¶16

Survey No.242 & 243, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M),

¶17

Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶18

8. M/s. Bhuvaneswari Parboiled Modern Rice Mill Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.230/1A and 230/2, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶19

9. M/s. Raja Rajeswari Parboiled Rice Industries Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.193/1, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶20

10. M/s. Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Parboiled Rice Mill Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.185/2 to 185/5, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶21

11. M/s. Sri Padmalaya Parboiled Rice Industry

¶22

Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.232, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶23

12. M/s. Sri Raghavendra Swamy Parboiled Rice Industry Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.234/1 and 242/4, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶24

13. M/s. Venkata Lakshmi Parboiled Rice Mills Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.243, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶25

14. M/s. Sri Venkataramana Parboiled Modern Rice Mills Represented by its Proprietor Survey No.230/1A and 230/2, Komarabanda (V), Kodad (M), Suryapet District, Telangana – 508 206.

¶26

…Respondent(s)

¶27

For Applicant(s): Mr. G. Stanly Hebzon Singh & Mr. K. Mageshwaran. For Respondent(s): Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R1 & R3. Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R2. M/s. K. Muralidhar Reddy, T. Swetcha for R4 to R9 & R11 to R14.

¶28

Page 2 of 9

¶29

CORAM :

¶30

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶31

HON’BLE Dr. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶32

J U D G E M E N T

¶33

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶34

1. This is an application seeking closure or stringent action to be taken against Respondents No.4 to 14, who are industries engaged in the activities of production and supply of parboiled rice, causing enormous pollution in the surrounding area and also affecting the properties of the environment, which includes the health of the people.

¶35

2. The applicant is trying to highlight the unregulated and unscientific operation of the parboiled rice industries in an unstructured manner operated by Respondents No.4 to 14 in Komarabanda Village, Kodad Municipality, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶36

3. It is alleged that the above industries are running without obtaining mandated Consent to Establish/Operate from the Telangana SPCB without following any mitigation measures. Those industries that obtained consent from the Telangana SPCB are also violating the conditions of the consent. It is further alleged that Respondents No.4 to 14 are running industries without proper Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) as directed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for the production of parboiled rice. The untreated effluents are said to be discharged into the open lands and to the agricultural lands, which affects the groundwater, which is used for irrigation and drinking purposes in the vicinity.

¶37

4. The further allegation of the applicant is that the operations of these industries cause exorbitant water and air pollution as thick black smoke is emitted through the stack of the industries. The dust and air emanating from these industries are

¶38

Page 3 of 9

¶39

deposited in the air and water, resulting in health hazards to the people living around the area. The storage of the huge quantity of husk and ash openly also causes enormous pollution, which is not regulated by the authorities.

¶40

5. On the above grounds, the applicant has sought for the closure of the activities with respect to parboiled rice and other activities of the industries, which are operating without obtaining Consent to Establish/Operate from the Telangana SPCB.

¶41

6. In response to the application, the Telangana SPCB had filed several reports periodically during the pendency of the case.

¶42

7. In the report dated 09.07.2021 , it is stated that these industries were originally established between 1990 and 2007in the Komarabanda Village, but are now part of Kodad Municipality. The Telangana SPCB had issued closure orders dated 10.12.2019 to ten units for non-compliance with environmental norms after conducting inspections on the basis of the complaints received from the nearby residents. The temporary revocation orders were granted on 25.08.2020 and subsequently extended at the request of the industries, wherein the corrective measures have been implemented. It is stated that in June 2021, of the 05 mills, 03 mills were closed due to COVID-19, 01 was closed for maintenance and 01 was defunct.

¶43

8. It is reported that monitoring of these units revealed that the units complied with most of the standards regarding the effluents, groundwater, soil and stack emissions, except Ambient Air Quality, where the particulate matter exceeded the permissible limits due to vehicular movement and open storage of husk and ash. However, it is observed that effluent and soil samples complied with the standards indicating no significant contamination. Therefore, the Telangana SPCB instructed the industries to address the air pollution, maintain better housekeeping, construct metal roads within the premises and implement measures to control fugitive emissions, in addition to furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 Lakh for compliance.

¶44

Page 4 of 9

¶45

9. The follow-up report dated 13.09.2021 was filed by the Telangana SPCB, as per which, the temporary revocation orders dated 07.07.2021 were extended for another six months with specific conditions, including storage of husk and ash in closed rooms, water spraying to control dust and disposal of boiler ash to brick industries. The inspection conducted revealed compliance with most of the conditions, except the delay in constructing the metal/concrete roads within the mill premises. The air quality monitoring could not be conducted due to continuous rains. The Telangana SPCB also cross-verified with the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL) regarding the operation of the mills during the closure period.

¶46

10. In the next report dated 21.02.2022 filed by the Telangana SPCB, it is stated that 10 rice mills had not fully complied with the directions issued vide order dated 07.07.2021, which included the delay in laying of metal roads and insufficient water spraying on approach roads and within the premises to control dust and fugitive emissions. To be noted is that the Telangana SPCB also forfeited 50% of the Bank Guarantee due to the non-compliance. Further extension of three months of the temporary revocation of closure orders was issued subject to further conditions, including compliance with the pollution measures and furnishing fresh Bank Guarantees.

¶47

11. The next report dated 25.04.2023 of the Telangana SPCB states that 10 of the rice mills were currently conducting only raw rice milling activities and stopped the parboiled rice milling. The industries informed the Telangana SPCB that they may resume the parboiled rice milling activity upon receiving orders from the Civil Supplies Department. Such undertakings were given by 10 of the industries on 02.03.2023, assuring prior intimation to be given to the Telangana SPCB before restarting the parboiled rice milling activity.

¶48

Page 5 of 9

¶49

12. The report dated 19.07.2023 of the Telangana SPCB mentions that of the 11 industries, 08 are parboiled rice mills, 02 are steam rice mills and 01 is a sick parboiled rice mill. 10 of the industries that are operational had valid Consent to Operate from the Telangana SPCB.

¶50

13. From the above pleadings, the issue that arises for determination is

¶51

“Whether the parboiled rice mill require consent, considering the nature of the activities involved?”

¶52

14. The Parboiled Rice Milling involves pre-cleaning, soaking, drying, and milling processes. The pollution source in this process is the wastewater from soaking tanks and emissions from boilers, husk and ash handling. Raw Rice Milling involves pre-cleaning, de-husking, husk separation and polishing, which is relatively minimal in its pollution potential compared to parboiled rice milling. Steam Rice Milling involves pre-cleaning, steaming, drying and milling.

¶53

15. While so, upon inspection on 27.02.2023, the Telangana SPCB reported that 10 of the industries that are operating have limited their activity only to raw rice milling and the consents were to be amended accordingly. The industries also gave an undertaking on 02.03.2023 that prior intimation would be given before restarting the parboiled rice milling activities. The Telangana SPCB has stated that they would conduct inspections and monitor the boiler emissions and ETPs, upon resumption of parboiled rice milling activity by the respondents. In the meanwhile, the Telangana SPCB has stated that guidelines for parboiled rice milling activity were issued via Circular Memo dated 06.02.1999 and that the Telangana SPCB is following the said guidelines while regulating the operations of parboiled rice mills.

¶54

16. Following the Task Force Committee’s recommendations, the Telangana SPCB issued the Consent to Operate Amendment order on 22.09.2023 for the industries to

¶55

Page 6 of 9

¶56

limit the operation to raw rice milling. Respondents No.10 and 12 were closed and the amendment was not required. Based on the earlier compliance, the Telangana SPCB issued the Consent to Operate Amendment Orders on 04.11.2023.

¶57

17. The final report dated 24.11.2024 of the Telangana SPCB reviewed the compliance of these mills with their respective Consent to Operate and updated the consents to reflect their operational activities. The report of the inspection conducted on 01.11.2024 states that of the 07 units that had obtained consent for parboiled rice milling activities, at the time of inspection, only 01industry was engaged in the raw rice milling, 03 industries were engaged in drying of paddy only and another 03 industries were engaged in both drying of paddy land and raw rice milling, 02 of them were not operational and 02 other industries were categorized as sick and non-operational.

¶58

18. From the reports of the Telangana SPCB, it is seen that regular monitoring is done and the compliance status is followed, including updates on the operational activities and pollution control measures. The report of the Telangana SPCB indicates that all operational activities meet the required environmental parameters.

¶59

19. The emphasis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti &Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 326 is that “… … … Mere directions are inconsequential, unless a rigid implementation mechanism is laid down” .

¶60

20. The reports of the Telangana SPCB referred above clearly indicate that those industries alleged to be polluting due to the parboiled rice milling activity have restricted their operations only to raw rice milling or steam rice milling. Only 01 of the industry has resumed the parboiled rice milling which is with the consent of the Telangana SPCB and is also said to be fully compliant with the consent conditions. This application, pending since 2021, is only to monitor that the regulatory bodies

¶61

Page 7 of 9

¶62

are implementing the guidelines for parboiled rice milling activities and that the industries are strictly following the same.

¶63

21. When the Telangana SPCB has issued the guidelines, the same has to be followed without any infringement of the same. Continuing tolerance of any violation or breach of conditions only renders the legal provisions nugatory. However, such tolerance by the regulatory bodies only would encourage the lawlessness and adoption of means cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.

¶64

22. Further, when the guidelines are issued for a specific purpose with a view to protect and preserve the environment, the authorities ought to ensure that the same is implemented. When the rules are not followed voluntarily, the same has to be enforced, failing which would amount to condoning the infringement of law.

¶65

23. Therefore, we are of the opinion that despite the passage of more than three years, the authorities particularly, the Telangana SPCB are unable to implement the norms or guidelines and to bring under control the parboiling rice activity in Komarabanda Village, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶66

24. We expect and direct the Telangana SPCB to continue their monitoring of the activity and take appropriate action in case of violation. Any industry intending to resume or shift to parboiled rice milling or other milling activities not covered under their current consent must obtain prior approval from the Telangana SPCB. The Telangana SPCB shall conduct periodic inspections to verify that any changes in operational activities continue to comply with environmental standards. Any violation hereafter, by any of these industries, should be strictly viewed by the Telangana SPCB and consent cannot be granted for the sake of asking without imposing environmental compensation.

¶67

Page 8 of 9

¶68

25. With the above directions, the Original Application [O.A. No.90 of 2021 (SZ)] is disposed of.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶71

Sd/Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶72

O.A. No.90/2021 (SZ) 22^nd November, 2024. Mn.

¶73

Page 9 of 9

Naveen Kumar Jalagam v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar Jalagam v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Raju Goyal vs State of Maharashtra through Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Gaurav Chaturvedi vs State of Gujarat through District Magistrate Surat

Shalbhjit Singh vs

Bajrang Agarwal vs

Swaminathan vs

Akash Dubey vs Union of India

Monu vs State of Uttarakhand

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2024 in Original Application No. 135/2021 of K. Palaniyappan vs District Collector

Nannepaga Venkata Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Rusendrababu vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "3 Killed as Major Fire Breaks Out at Perfume Warehouse Near Bengaluru" Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 19.02.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "3 Killed as Major Fire Breaks Out at Perfume Warehouse Near Bengaluru" Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 19.02.2024 vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Suo Motu Illegal Stone Quarry in Vadipatti vs Directorate of Geology and Mining