Dismissed

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud v. Union of India

NGT9 Jan 2025IA No. 113/2022 in Appeal No. 40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Southern Zone National Green Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance for a grain-based distillery and captive thermal power plant. The court held that the project falls under a 'B2' category exempting it from detailed EIA and public consultation, and all material objections regarding water usage and waste management were addressed by respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeallla was dismissed and Interim Application No. 113 of 2022 is also dismissed. No Environmental Clearance is quashed.

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Thursday the 9th day of January, 2025. Appeal No. 40 of 2022 (SZ) &

¶3

I.A. Nos. 113 of 2022 and 33 of 2024. (Through Video Conference)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF

¶5

1. Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud, 38 years, S/o Munindar Goud, House No.3-2, Chittanur Village, Marikal (M), Narayanpet (D), Telangana- 509 409.

¶6

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.

¶7

2. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad- 500018.

¶8

3. State Government of Telangana, Through the Chief Secretary, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, 9th Floor, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad- 5000063.

¶9

4. Jurala Organic Farms and Agro Industries LLP, Through by its Managing Director, Chittanur Village, Marikal Mandal, Naryanpet District, Telangana- 509 409.

...Respondent(s)

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.

¶15

Judgment Reserved on: 3^rd December, 2024.

¶16

CORAM :

¶17

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana , Judicial Member

¶20

The appellants who are residents of the project site in Chittanur Village, Narayanpet District, State of Telangana alleging significant environment and procedural lapses in the project appraisal have filed the above appeal challenging the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of the project proponent dated 03.01.2022. The Environmental Clearance was granted for establishment of Grain based distilleries producing Ethanol in an area of 13.19 ha., site along with a captive coal based thermal power plant with a capacity of 15 MW.

¶21

The appellants state that the project involves critical water usage from Koilsagar lift irrigation project but they have not obtained requisite permission for water withdrawal. The local farmers who depend on the same for irrigation purpose may face potential

¶22

¶23

depletion as two of the canals have reportedly been diverted into the project site for storage in newly constructed tanks.

¶24

In addition, the 15 MW captive thermal power plant requires substantial coal input without a confirmed coal linkage or even the assessment of the coal characteristics. It is alleged that Environment Impact Assessment and public consultation for the power project were not conducted. The appellants also have expressed concern over the absence of delay analysis of ash pond impact, waste water discharge and plant’s water requirements.

¶25

The respondents have filed individual replies in the appeal. Heard Mr. Ritwick Dutta for the appellants. Mr. Meyyappan for Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1, Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R2, Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R3 and Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. along with Mrs. T. Hemalatha for R4.

¶26

I.A. No. 33 of 2024 is filed by the appellants for receiving additional documents, namely, Form- I and II, Pre-feasibility report, letter dated 10.02.2022, additional information provided by project proponent and standard TOR. The additional documents are taken on record. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 33 of 2024 is

¶27

disposed of.

¶28

The grounds of challenge in the appeal:

¶29

(1) Permission for water withdrawal not obtained.

¶30

5.1.1 The project proponent even before the EAC and MoEF&CC had submitted that it requires 2700 M³ per day of water from the

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

5.1.2 The Environmental Clearnce was granted with specific conditions requiring the project proponent to secure irrigation permissions before the commencement of the operation. The report states that a site visit on 29.06.2022 to the project area confirmed that the Irrigation Department also visited the project site and approvals for obtaining the water from Koilsagar are in the final stage. Further, the project proponent is also informed that engineering works has been initiated for the purpose of storage of fresh water, rain water storage, storm water storage as mentioned in the Environment Impact Plan report on the north side and south side of the project.

¶35

5.1.3 Regarding the above aspect, the Telangana State Pollution Control Board also highlighted that the project proponent had applied for and obtained necessary approvals for water withdrawal. It also emphasised that the Environmental Clearance strictly limit the water usage to 2400 KLD and mandate Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. The total water

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

(2) Impacts of water withdrawal have not been studied.

¶40

5.2.1 According to the appellants, availability of water in Koilsagar is seasonal and the local farmers dependent on it for agricultural, irrigation and for ground water recharge. The project

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

water on Koilsagar.

¶44

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.

¶45

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 4^th 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.

¶46

5.2.4 The project proponent in this regard has stated that the impacts of water withdrawal were considered by the EAC and has

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

(3) Illegal diversion of two water canals and the water in it for the project.

¶50

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.

¶51

5.3.2 The said aspect was already taken note by the MoEF&CC during their site visit on 29.06.2022 and observed that the project proponent has sought for the water allocation from Koilsagar lift irrigation scheme. The said allocation is pursued without affecting the irrigation water requirement for agriculture based

¶52

on the special observations during inspection.

¶53

5.3.3 The Telangana Pollution Control Board also stated that the project proponent has implemented the measures to manage effluents and non-processed waste water including the construction of the neutralization tank and utilisation of treated water for green belt development etc. It also emphasised that the project proponent must ensure compliance of the conditions

¶54

¶55

set out in the CFE including waste water storage and drainage provisions.

¶56

5.3.4 In this regard, the project proponent clarified that the water canals referred by the appellants are not irrigation canals but natural streams or water courses passing through the project area. As a part of the EMP, these water courses have been integrated into the storm water drainage system to prevent flowing within the project site. Box drains and other engineering measures have been implemented to manage rain water run off effectively and ensuring no adverse impact on local water resources and agricultural activities.

¶57

(4) EIA study and public consultation for captive thermal power plant have not been conducted.

¶58

5.4.1 The project includes a proposed 15 MW captive thermal power plant being a ‘B-1’ category project which requires an EIA study and public consultation under the EIA Notification, 2006. It is the complaint of the appellants that no such assessments were undertaken violating the statutory requirements. In this regard, MoEF&CC replied that the project proponent is setting up a grain based distillery under category ‘B2’ as per notification no. SO 2339 (E) dated 16.06.2021. The said notification dated 16.06.2021 prescribes that special provision in the EIA Notification, 2006 (Schedule 5(ga), Category B2) is made, wherein for all applications made for grain based distilleries with Zero Liquid Discharge system producing ethanol solely to be used for Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme of the Government of India shall be considered under the ‘B2’ category and

¶59

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

(5) Impact of the captive thermal power plant have not been studied.

¶64

5.5.1 The appellants have alleged that specific issues like coal linkage, impact of ash ponds and the characteristics analysis of coal proposed to be used for the project, the source of water and the impact of waste water discharge from the thermal power plant were not studied by the project proponent.

¶65

¶66

5.5.2 Regarding the confirmed coal linkage, it is alleged that the project proponent does not have a confirmed coal supply agreement for the thermal power project which requires 552 tons per day. Further, no scientific evaluation of the coal characteristics in particular reference to heavy metals and other toxic components have been conducted to assess the environment and health impacts. In this regard, the Telangana Pollution Control Board has stated that the project proponent proposed to install coal/biomass/briquette fired boiler of capacity 100 TPH with ESP followed by stack of 83 m height for dispersion of the boiler emissions and DG sets of capacity 2x500 KVA with acoustic enclosures.

¶67

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.

¶68

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

¶69

has submitted that as per the CFE, the Board has directed the project proponent not to store ash openly and shall store the

¶70

¶71

same in silo only and the same shall be transported for the use of brick manufacturing.

¶72

(6) Failure to study impact of waste water discharge.

¶73

5.6.1 The next ground raised by the appellants in assailing the Environmental Clearance. The MoEF&CC has emphasised that the project adheres to the ZLD standard ensuring that no waste water is discharged outside the premises. The waste water will be treated through multi-effect evaporator and Condensate Polishing unit for re-use within the premises.

¶74

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.

¶75

5.6.3 The project proponent also assured to incorporate condensate

¶76

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

¶77

¶78

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.

¶79

5.6.4 The project has partnered with M/s SICGIL, India’s largest CO2 handling company to establish a State-of-the-art CO2 capturing and dry ice manufacturing unit. This is an additional revenue stream for the industry which creates an incentive for capturing all CO2 produced without releasing it into the air. Thus, the project proponent has assured that all necessary measures are taken to safeguard the environment and there is no degradation caused because of this project.

¶80

From the foregoing facts and considering the concerns raised by the appellants and the replies given by the official respondents and the project proponent, it is evident that the project has been granted Environmental Clearance in accordance with the provision of S.O 2339 (E) dated 16.06.2021 which certifies the grain-based ethanol with ZLD as ‘B2’ project. The above notification exempts the EBP programme from the detailed EIA and public consultation requirements provided the ethanol is solely used for the EBP programme. The purpose of the said notification itself is rooted in the Country’s commitment to sustainable energy goods under the EBP programme which seeks to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for green house gas emissions and support the agricultural economy. The exemption given is only to intensify the ethanol production from grains with ZLD systems, a policy which balances environmental conservation with socio-economic benefits.

¶81

¶82

The grounds raised in the appeal challenging their Environmental Clearance granted for the project on the ground that additional water usage, coal and power plant operation, national waste management, effluent management etc., are clearly and categorically explained by the MoEF&CC and the Telangana Pollution Control Board and also has ensured that the project proponent would comply with the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance as well as in the consent orders. Therefore, no merits found in the appeal and the apprehension expressed by the appellants are on surmises and are baseless. However, we direct the project proponent to be aware of the legal implications in the event of violation of any of the conditions or norms they are required to follow or imposed by the regulatory bodies.

¶83

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

¶84

In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the I.A. No. 113 of 2022 also

¶85

stands dismissed.

¶86

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶87

Appeal No.40/2022(SZ) 9th January, 2025.(AM)

¶88

¶89

Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai)

¶90

Appeal No. 40 of 2022(SZ)
Kulal Munindar Narendar
Goud & Ors.
Vs.
UOI & Ors.
Appeal No. 40/2022(SZ)
9th January,2025. (AM)

¶91

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud v. Union of India

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

Kgisl Technologies and Infrastructures Private Limited vs Seiaa

Gold Star a Proprietorship Firm through Mr Prasad Betkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

M/S Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Road Expansion Along Nilgiris Highways Ruining Local Ecology Increasing Risk of Landslips: Activists" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 04.01.2024 vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Sunil Paliwal vs Local Self Government Department

Vikas Kumar vs

Vikas Kumar vs

Kgisl Technologies and Infrastructures Private Limited vs Seiaa

Gr. Tamilmani vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

P Kamalakannan vs the District Forest Officer

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Rathinasamy vs District Collector