Appeal challenging environmental clearance for a grain distillery and captive thermal power plant was dismissed. Court found clearance granted under S.O 2339 valid, addressing water and ash concerns via respondent statements and regulatory conditions.
No relief declared for appellants; impugned clearance upheld.
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.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Thursday the 9th day of January, 2025. Appeal No. 40 of 2022 (SZ) &
I.A. Nos. 113 of 2022 and 33 of 2024. (Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud, 38 years, S/o Munindar Goud, House No.3-2, Chittanur Village, Marikal (M), Narayanpet (D), Telangana- 509 409.
2. Salguti Manivardhan Reddy, 43 years, S/o Bhagavanth Reddy, House No.2-27, Chittanur Village, Marikal (M), Narayanpet (D), Telangana- 509 409. 3. Pattapally Murali, 28 years, S/o Puttapalli Krishnaiah, House No.1-18, Chittanur Village, Marikal (M), Narayanpet (D), Telangana- 509 409. ...Appellant(s) Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Enviornment and Forests & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Ali Gunj, New Delhi- 110003.
2. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad- 500018.
3. State Government of Telangana, Through the Chief Secretary, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, 9th Floor, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad- 5000063.
4. Jurala Organic Farms and Agro Industries LLP, Through by its Managing Director, Chittanur Village, Marikal Mandal, Naryanpet District, Telangana- 509 409.
...Respondent(s)
1
For Applicant(s):
Mr. Ritwick Dutta
For Respondent(s): Mr. Meyyappan represented Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1. Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R2. Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R3. Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. along with Mrs. T. Hemalatha for R4.
Judgment Reserved on: 3rd December, 2024.
CORAM :
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member
2
depletion as two of the canals have reportedly been diverted into the project site for storage in newly constructed tanks.
disposed of.
3
Koilsagar lift irrigation project but the project proponent had not obtained the requisite permission from the competent authority for the withdrawal of the water. It is alleged that the EAC and MoEF&CC had appraised the project and granted clearance without ensuring the requisite authorisation required.
In this regard, the MoEF&CC had clarified that as per the EIA Notification, 2006 permissions from other regulatory body is not pre-requisite for granting Environmental Clearance unless explicitly required by law.
4
requirement of 2700 M3 per day will be meet from the Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme. The effluent of 4240 M3 per day quantity will be treated through MEE and Condensate Polishing unit and the plant will be based on ZLD system. The Pollution Control Board had issued CFE for total water consumption 2400 KLD from Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme out of which for process1020 KLD, soft water for distillation, Cooling Tower make up820 KLD, DM water for boiler makeup and Distillation-835 KLD and domestic-25 KLD as per CFE application filed by the project.
5.1.4 The Jurala Organics and Agro Industries LLP, which is the project proponent, submitted that the Telangana Irrigation Department had formerly approved the withdrawal of water from Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme on 29.08.2022. Regarding the allegation of diversion of two water canals into the project site, these natural rainwater storms are flowing through the project land and there is absolutely no diversion. The project proponent has constructed box drains of more than adequate capacity to properly channelize the natural streams into Manne Vaagu without any obstruction or diversion to prevent flooding and soil erosion. The project proponent also assured that the water allocation would not adversely affect the local irrigation needs.
5
proponent has not provided the details regarding the water availability during lean season and the socio environmental impact of diverting the water. The MoEF&CC in this regard has stated that the water management plan mitigates withdrawal impact also. The industry has been recommended to construct rain water storage pond of 60 days capacity to meet the fresh water requirement in order to reduce the dependence of fresh
water on Koilsagar.
5.2.2 The Expert Appraisal Committee had recommended that the total fresh water requirement shall not exceed 2400 KLD which should be meet from the Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme. No ground water recharge shall be permitted within the premises and the industry shall construct a storage pond of 60 days capacity and the accumulated water to be used as fresh water thereby reducing the fresh water consumption.
5.2.3 The Pollution Control Board also in this regard has stated that a detailed hydrological study and water plans demonstrating compliance with sustainable water policies is submitted by the project proponent. The 4th respondent, project proponent, has proposed to treat and dispose non-processed effluents as back wash from the DM plant and softner, boiler blow down neutralized in neutralization tank and will be mixed with cooling tower blow down in CMB and will be utilised for green belt development, dust suppression and ash conditioning.
6
directed that prior permission shall be obtained from the regulatory authority. Accordingly, the project proponent had obtained necessary permission. The project proponent also has emphasised measures like ZLD and rain water harvesting to further reduce fresh water dependency.
(3) Illegal diversion of two water canals and the water in it for the project.
5.3.1 The appellants have complained about the two canals from the Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme being diverted into the project site without disclosure during the appraisal or permission from the relevant authorities. A large storage tank has been constructed within the project site to store the diverted water adversely affecting the local farmers.
on the special observations during inspection.
7
set out in the CFE including waste water storage and drainage provisions.
(4) EIA study and public consultation for captive thermal power plant have not been conducted.
8
appraised at central level by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) with a condition that the project proponent shall file a notarized affidavit that ethanol produced from proposed project site shall be used completely for EBP programme for which standard TOR and public hearing is not applicable. Therefore, the thermal power plant being integral to distillery operations is exempted from TOR and public hearing.
5.4.2 The Pollution Control Board also has stated that the project proponent falls under ‘B2’ category and the TOR and public consultation is not applicable. Hence there is no violation of EIA Notification, 2006 as alleged by the appellants.
5.4.3 The project proponent in this regard has stated that the Environmental Clearance granted specifically stated that the ethanol produced shall be used solely for EBP programme. Therefore, the thermal power plant which is a cogent unit designed only to support the project’s energy needs cannot be considered as an independent project.
(5) Impact of the captive thermal power plant have not been studied.
9
5.5.3 The project proponent also has affirmed that though there is no confirmed coal linkage, it envisages use of imported coal or domestic of appropriate quality sourcing from open markets complying with all the emissions standards.
5.5.4 The impact of ash pond- As the domestic coal generates substantial ash contents and the project is estimated to produce over 54780 tons of ash annually, the details regarding the location, design or environmental impact of the ash pond have not been provided. The Pollution Control Board in this regard has stated that the project proposes to dispose 220 tons per day of fly ash all of which is required to be utilised in brick manufacturing. The Pollution Control Board
has submitted that as per the CFE, the Board has directed the project proponent not to store ash openly and shall store the
10
same in silo only and the same shall be transported for the use of brick manufacturing.
(6) Failure to study impact of waste water discharge.
5.6.2 The Pollution Control Board regarding the waste water states that there is an effluent of 4710 which will be treated through ZLD systems. The non-processed effluents, such as boiler blowdown, will be neutralized and used for greenbelt development, dust suppression, and ash conditioning. The scrubbed water CO2 recovery plant is utilised in the fermentation section.
5.6.3 The project proponent also assured to incorporate condensate
advance technologies supplied by M/s Praj Industries. The cooling tower blowdown and process effluents are concentrated in evaporator through application of steam, from which the fluids are again recycled to the PCTP for reuse ensuring closed loop system that minimises the liquid waste. The solid waste which is protein rich are sent to Distillers Dry Grain Soluble (DDGS) dryers, where they are bagged for consumption as animal feed. This economic incentive derives the proponent to efficiently process and recycling the effluents without any direct
11
waste disposal. Thus, achieving financial and environmental goals. All the CO2 generated in the fermentation process is captured and sold as either liquid CO2 or converted into dry ice.
12
stands dismissed.
............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.40/2022(SZ) 9th January, 2025.(AM)
13
Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai)
Appeal No. 40 of 2022(SZ)
Kulal Munindar Narendar
Goud & Ors.
Vs.
UOI & Ors.
Appeal No. 40/2022(SZ)
9th January,2025. (AM)
14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether environmental clearance can be granted for a grain distillery with captive thermal plant without separate EIA for the power plant.
Whether the appellant's allegations regarding water withdrawal from Koilsagar and ash pond impacts are substantiated.
Whether exemptions under S.O 2339 (E) applying T-EBP projects are valid in this context.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud
Salguti Manivardhan Reddy
Union of India
Telangana State Pollution Control Board
State Government of Telangana
Jurala Organic Farms and Agro Industries LLP
Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Satyagopal Korlapati
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
