Dismissed

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

NGT5 Dec 2025Appeal No. 25/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal upheld an order imposing Rs. 1 crore Interim Environment Damage Compensation on an industrial unit following a worker death. Despite the appellant claiming the death resulted from a fall rather than hazardous chemicals, the Court found violations of safety norms and CC&A conditions based on Postmortem evidence indicating oxygen deficiency. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order imposing Environment Damage Compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000 was upheld.

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶2

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶3

¶4

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

M/S. KLJ PETROPLAST LTD. Through its Director, Plot No: 909, 909/1, 764, GIDC Estate Jhagadia, District- Bharuch.

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶10

Through its Member Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sector 10 A, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382 010.

¶11

.....Respondent

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶13

Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶15

Mr. Neelkanth Mehta, Advocate for R-GPCB

¶16

PRESENT:

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) Hon’ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)

¶18

Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Pronounced on : 05.12.2025

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the sole Respondent- GPCB, by which Interim Environment Damage Compensation (EDC) to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) has been ordered to be levied from the appellant.

¶21

Page 1 of 14

¶22

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶23

The submission made by the appellant in this appeal is that the impugned order has been passed by the sole Respondent- Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) under section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, thereby directing the appellant to submit Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 lacs and pay Interim Environment Damage Compensation (EDC) to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Only).

¶24

It is further submitted in this appeal that the appellant has paid the interim EDC amount under the condition that it would be subject to the outcome of the case. The appellant is operating an industrial plant to manufacture Di Iso Nonyl Phthalate (DINP) and some other chemicals, which are narrated in para no.6, at Plot No.909, 909/1 & 764, GIDC Jhagadia, Dist. Bharuch. The Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CC&A) has been granted to the appellant by the GPCB on 21.09.2023 which was further amended on 23.02.2024 and the same is valid till 12.05.2027. After receipt of the impugned direction, the appellant has replied to the same vide its letter dated 07.10.2023, thereby specifying point-wise compliance, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure- D to the appeal.

¶25

It is further submitted in this appeal that being aggrieved by the impugned direction, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 before the Appellate Authority (Forest and Environment Department, Government of Goa) on 19.10.2023. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority decided the said appeal on 13.02.2024 holding that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the same and directed that in case the appellant is aggrieved by this order, the same can be challenged before the National Green Tribunal.

¶26

Page 2 of 14

¶27

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶28

It is further submitted in this appeal that at the site in question, an accident occurred on 08.06.2023 while removing the scaffolding inside the pre-treatment vessel V-541 C after maintenance activity. Thereafter, on the basis of mere occurrence of an accident, without following Principals of Natural Justice, the impugned direction has been passed by the GPCB, thereby imposing interim EDC.

¶29

It is further submitted in this appeal that the cause of accident could not be ascertained, however, as per the primary information received from the contacted person on 08.06.2023 at around 18:30 hrs., after the maintenance of the agitator of the pre-treatment vessel in the new plant of Phthalic Anhydride, three workers went inside the vessel to take out/ remove the scaffolding materials used for the maintenance from the vessel. There is no iota of evidence to show that the death of the worker resulted due to non-compliance and/or violation of environmental norms/ law and yet the GPCB imposed huge amount of EDC only on the basis of hearsay evidence without applying its mind. The GPCB has not even specified any non-compliance and/or violation of environmental law to be the basis for assessment of the Interim EDC.

¶30

It is further submitted in this appeal that after the accident, Postmortem Report from the Civil Hospital and Panchanama by Police have been conducted, copies of which are annexed as Annexure- G and Annexure- H respectively. From these documents, it is clear that the cause of death of the deceased was due to fall from height, while removing the scaffolding (temporary framework/ structure provided to stand on and work on height) from the vessel (V-541-C) and injury in head resulting in hemorrhage. The exact reason mentioned is “Cardio Respiratory failure on account of extensive intracranial haemorrhage and its complication”. A

¶31

Page 3 of 14

¶32

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶33

report/ letter has also been prepared by the DISH (Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health), copy of which is annexed as Annexure-I.

¶34

It is further submitted in this appeal that the vessel (V-541-C) was not in operation since April 2023. The said vessel was cleaned and flushed thoroughly for maintenance purpose. There was no chemical/gases etc. in the vessel, that would have caused death or accident on 07.06.2023 i.e. a day prior to the accident, repair and maintenance work was carried out in the same vessel under the supervision of the safety officer following all due precautions and permissions to work in a confined space. All the safety measures were adopted and maintenance was carried out without any irregularities.

¶35

It is further submitted in this appeal that the deceased worker entered the vessel to save the two workers, who were already inside, but he fell down in the vessel and died due to the injury and haemorrhage. He was unconscious but breathing when taken to the hospital. In the hospital while under treatment, he was declared to be dead and the other two workers were given proper medical treatment and were discharged from the hospital. It is further submitted that all the records, such as the Postmortem Report and the Panchanama, nowhere mentions that the death of the worker or unconsciousness of the other two workers was caused due to the pollution and/or any non-compliance of Environmental Law. There were no pollutants/gases/chemicals in the vessel that could have caused death of the worker, as the vessel was not in operation since April 2023. The engineering repair work was required to be done in the vessel. It was ensured before starting with the maintenance work that there were no traces of chemicals or gases and all necessary precautions were taken.

¶36

Page 4 of 14

¶37

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶38

It is further submitted in this appeal that the appellant had provided the safety measures and it was observed that two contract workers entered the vessel wearing safety measures as per the norms by the Department of Industrial Safety and Health. The Hazard and Operability study (HAZOP) has been conducted for identifying possible hazards in the process, which has considered the fact that if the process is broken down then what are the steps to be taken and what could go wrong. The appellant has carried out the same and prepared a HAZOP report for April 2023, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure- J.

¶39

It is further submitted in this appeal that the DISH issued a license to work in the factory after ensuring all the safety measures envisaged under the Factories Act, 1958 and the rules made thereunder, which is valid upto 31^st December 2028. It is further mentioned that a case has already been filed by the DISH against the appellant and the same is adjudicated recently by the court of law by imposing penalty on the appellant and the same has been deposited.

¶40

It is further submitted in this appeal that the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 to the tune of Rs.13,43,675/- has already been paid to the injured and deceased workers. The ex-gratia of Rs.5 lacs has also been paid by the appellant to the family of the deceased worker, considering the same as an exceptional case. The wife of the deceased has been offered with employment and currently she is working with the appellant’s Company and is also taking care of the education of the kids of the deceased worker. In this backdrop, the above prayers have been made by the appellant in the present appeal.

¶41

Page 5 of 14

¶42

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶43

This appeal was first heard on 15.04.2024 when the same was admitted and notice was directed to be issued to the sole Respondent i.e. GPCB.

¶44

In response to the above notice, reply affidavit dated 27.06.2024 has been filed by the GPCB, in which it is submitted that the Appellant’s unitM/s KLJ Petroplast Ltd. was inspected on 09.06.2023, on account of an accident occurred in Pre-treatment vessel V-541 C of Phthalic Anhydride, wherein 3 workers fell down, as they became unconscious. As per primary information received from the concerned person during the inspection, all three workers were taken out of the vessel in an unconscious state, out of which, one worker (Shri. Pravinbhai Machhi) died, while being taken to Seva Rural Hospital at Jhagadia and the other two workers (Shri Dinesh Ram and Shri Mukesh Ram) were admitted to Jeevan Jyot Hospital at Bharuch for immediate treatment. Aforesaid incident had occurred on 08.06.2023, however, no information was received from the appellant industry. Inspection was carried out based on social media news.

¶45

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that during the visit to the unit on 09.06.2023, it was observed that the manhole of the affected vessel was open, raw material inlet line, nitrogen inlet line, steam line, product material outlet line etc. were found blinded with blind flanges and air circulation was taking place by providing three pipe lines. Pursuant to that, the appellant’s unit was asked to submit Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health’s report, Postmortem report and Forensic Science Laboratory report via e-mails dated 21.06.2023 and 27.06.2023. The appellant’s unit submitted postmortem report on 28.06.2023 through email. However, the DISH report and Forensic Science Laboratory report were still awaited. Thereafter, the Unit was again reminded via email dated

¶46

Page 6 of 14

¶47

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶48

22.08.2023 to submit DISH report and Forensic Science Laboratory report. Thereafter, the appellant’s Unit has submitted DISH report.

¶49

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that after considering all the details and documentary reports submitted by the unit, Regional Office recommendation, and considering death of one person due to the said incident, the unit was issued Direction under section 31-A of the Air (prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 20.09.2023 and interim Environment Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Only) was also imposed considering clause no.4(2) of prevailing Environment Damage Compensation Policy. The reports, which were prepared by the concerned Authorities, clearly indicate the lapses on the part of the appellant, on account of which the accident happened. It is apparent that the accident happened due to its non-compliance to follow safety norms, while dealing with the hazardous chemicals, in spite of there being statutorily prescribed norms under the MSIHC Rules, 1989 and Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 (CAEPPR Rules, 1996), due to which death of one person has occurred. As per DISH report, the death has occurred due to lack of oxygen in vessel (Here vessel is considered by DISH as a closed confined place where oxygen supply is necessary), which is clear and blatant violation of safety norms. The appellant’s unit is responsible for taking appropriate measures regarding safety and environment and to comply with CC&A conditions and all prevailing rules. The report of DISH clearly records the fact that there were lapses on the part of the appellant which lead to suffocation and further lead to unconsciousness of the workers, out of whom one of the workmen died.

¶50

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that the EDC policy of this Board states that in case of industrial accident, if accident is

¶51

Page 7 of 14

¶52

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶53

having causality, it shall be considered as severe/emergency. On the basis of this prevailing guideline, the Answering Respondent imposed Interim Environment Damage Compensation of Rs.1 Crore along-with directions on 20.09.2023.

¶54

With reference to the contents of para 5 of the appeal, it is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that once the compliance of the impugned order of the Respondent Board is done, the same cannot be subject to the outcome of this Petition and it is nothing but an afterthought on the part of the appellant to state so. The appellant once having complied with the impugned order has no cause to file the present appeal before this Tribunal.

¶55

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that it is false and denied that there is no iota of evidence to show that the death of the worker was due to non-compliance and/or violation of the environmental norms/law as alleged. On the face of it, the death as also the accident has taken place on account of the casual approach of the appellant, for which the appellant is liable to be saddled with the penalty.

¶56

With reference to the contents of para 13, it is further mentioned in this affidavit by the GPCB that the suitable and convenient interpretation of the post-mortem report and panchnama is also not admitted. However, it is not true that from such documents, it is clear that the death of deceased was due to fall from height while removing the scaffolding from the vessel. The contents of para 22 are also not disputed so far, as the same are a matter of records. However, the same also in no way absolves the appellant from the penalty which has been imposed by the Answering Respondent. Moreover, such order and the observations in the said Order

¶57

Page 8 of 14

¶58

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶59

passed by the DISH have not been challenged by the appellant and the same have attained finality.

¶60

Appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 07.01.2025 to the reply affidavit of the GPCB, reiterating its averments made in the memo of appeal.

¶61

Appellant has also filed additional affidavit dated 17.06.2025 saying therein that compensation has already been paid under the Workman Compensation Act, 1987 & Other Acts & Ex-Gratia payment by the company and accordingly the appellant has already deposited total Compensation of Rs.28,33,434 (Rs.Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Four only) and the Payment Settlement for late Mr. Pravinbhai Kanubhai Machhi, details of which are as follows:-

¶62

“ PAYMENT SETTLEMENT TO LATE MR. PRAVINBHAI

¶63

KANUBHAI MACHHI

¶64

Page 9 of 14

¶65

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶66

”

¶67

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record in depth.

¶68

The main emphasis laid by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased worker died due to fall from height into the vessel accidently, while removing the scaffolding inside the pre-treatment vessel V-541 C when the same was being maintained and not due to any hazardous/injurious gases inside the vessels. Therefore, this wrong would be covered under the Factories Act, for which the appellant’s industry has already been prosecuted and punished. There is no iota of evidence to show that environmental damage is caused by the activity of the appellant’s industry, which caused of death of the deceased workman. There is no violation of the CC&A also, which could be attributed to have resulted in death of the workman, hence there was no justification for imposition of EDC upon the appellant’s industry. The amount of Rs.1 Crore has been erroneously imposed upon the appellant’s industry, which

¶69

Page 10 of 14

¶70

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶71

has been deposited under the protest, which should be subject to the final decision of this Tribunal in the present appeal.

¶72

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the sole Respondent- GPCB has drawn our attention to page no.49d of the paper book, whereon report dated 14.07.2023 filed by the Factory Inspector and Industrial Safety and Health Officer, Bharuch is annexed, in which it is submitted “ Vessel for pre-treatment in the U-500 Phthalic Anhydride Distillation Plant in the factory is admeasuring of approx. 8 meters height and 4 meters diameter. It has only one manhole on the top. It is having diameter of 500 mm ID. Therefore, the said vessel, due to it's structure, becomes the "Confined Space . Therefore, on going through Section-36 of the Factories Act- 1948, as per Para-2, No person shall be required or allowed to enter any confined space, until all practicable measures have been taken to remove any gas, fume, vapour or dust, which may be present so as to bring its level within the permissible limits and to prevent any ingress of such gas, fume, vapour or dust and unless a certificate in writing has been given by a competent person, based on a test carried out by himself that the space is reasonably free from dangerous gas, fume, vapour or dust; or such person is wearing suitable breathing apparatus and a belt securely attached to a rope the free end of which is held by a person outside the confined space. But, from the facts of the aforesaid accident, it has come to know that, when Mr. Dinesh Ram, Mr. Mukesh Ram and Mr. Pravin Machhi had entered into the vessel, there was no arrangement of providing oxygen in sufficient quantity in the vessel was made and they were not wearing personal protective equipments for artificial breathing such as SCBA set (Self-contained breathing apparatus), and they were not wearing any kind of belt having tied with the rope and having it's another end of such rope lying in the hand of any workman outside the vessel. No such equipments were provided. Therefore,

¶73

Page 11 of 14

¶74

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶75

prior to entry/allowing entry of all three workmen inside vessel, if any arrangement for providing oxygen in sufficient quantity was made inside vessel, and if they might have wearing personal protective equipments for artificial breathing such as SCBA set (Self-contained breathing apparatus) and wearing any belt having tied with the rope and having it's another end of such rope lying in the hand of any workman outside the vessel, the said accident may have been prevented. Therefore, by not making arrangement of sufficient quantity of oxygen inside the vessel, prior to allowing three workmen inside the vessel, and by not making them to wear personal protective equipments for artificial breathing such as SCBA set (Selfcontained breathing apparatus), and by not providing/making provision of any kind of belt having tied with the rope and having it's another end of such rope lying in the hand of any workman outside the vessel, occupier of the Factory has committed breach of provisions of Section- 36(2) of the Factories Act-1948.”

¶76

Having drawn our attention to the above finding given by the DISH, it is urged by learned counsel for the GPCB that the said description indicates that without protective equipments, three workmen were allowed to operate the vessel V-541 C for its maintenance and that resulted in death of one workman and injuries of two workmen because of lack of oxygen. Nowhere has it been stated that the cause of death was falling from the height.

¶77

We are not impressed by the argument made by learned counsel for the appellant that since the prosecution has already been initiated under the Factories Act, this Tribunal’s jurisdiction is exhausted to pass any order with regard to the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) and are of the opinion that CC&A was also granted to the appellant’s industry, subject to the following specific conditions:-

¶78

Page 12 of 14

¶79

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶80

“ a) Unit shall comply with all the conditions stipulated by SEIAA in the order of Environment Clearance issued vide letter no. SEIAA/GUJ/EC/5(f)/191/2021 dated 14/02/2023.

¶81

b) Unit shall use fresh raw material only.

¶82

c) Unit shall sell out their hazardous waste to authorized endusers who is having authorization with valid CCA and rule 9 permission to receive this waste. Unit shall make MoU with such authorized endusers and submit MoU.

¶83

d) All the efforts shall be made to send hazardous waste to cement industry for Co-processing first & there after it shall be disposed through other option.

¶84

e) Unit shall follow spent solvent management guideline framed by board and shall make MoU with outside distillation units, if any. Also submit the prescribed forms as per guideline.

¶85

f) Unit shall strictly follow the Solid Fuel guideline framed by Board and shall install APCM as per guideline.

¶86

g) Unit shall follow coal handling guideline framed by Board and provide close ash handling facility.

¶87

h) Unit shall strictly follow the Fly Ash Notification for disposal of generated ash.

¶88

i) Unit shall install online Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) and link it with the server of GPCB for real time data transfer for boiler more than 8 TPH capacity or equivalent capacity of TFH.”

¶89

In our estimation, adherence to the above specific conditions would certainly amount to adhering to the guidelines for safety of the workmen working in the industry, which appear to have not been taken in the case in hand. Therefore, violation of the CC&A would also be taken to have been established.

¶90

In the Postmortem Report, which is annexed at page no.58 onwards of the paper book, it records the cause of death to be cardio respiratory

¶91

Page 13 of 14

¶92

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶93

failure on account of extensive intracranial hemorrhage and its complications. This cause does not show that the death happened due to fall from a height, as is the case of the appellant, rather the same has resulted due to cardio respiratory failure, which indicates that the death happened because of lack of oxygen.

¶94

Learned counsel for the sole Respondent- GPCB has relied upon several Rulings of the Tribunal, such as order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Original Application No.671 of 2022; order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Original Application No.171 of 2024; order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Original Application No.150 of 2023, etc. and submitted that in the cases of accident where death occurred during operation of the industries dealing with hazardous substances, the Principal of Absolute Liability, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

¶95

MC Mehta vs. UOI [(1987 1 SCC 395] , has been relied upon. In the case in hand, there is no doubt that the substances, which were being manufactured in the industry in question, were of hazardous nature. Therefore, all precautionary measures ought to have been taken by the appellant’s industry, which has not been taken by it. Therefore, we find no reason to quash/set aside the impugned order and accordingly, the same is upheld.

¶96

With the above observations, we dismiss the present appeal accordingly.

¶97

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶98

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶99

December 05, 2025 APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶100

Page 14 of 14

¶101

APPEAL NO.25 OF 2024 (WZ)

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

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

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S. Mabel Hayes Inc. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Freedom Park Life Aoa vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra