Disposed

Aryavart Foundation v. M/S Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-Operative Society Ltd.

NGT1 Jul 2025Original Application No. 44/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held the MIDC liable as the sole in-charge for operating the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP). Despite arguments that pollution stemmed from member industries, the MIDC was directed to pay Environmental Damage Compensation calculated based on MPCB guidelines and previous Supreme Court jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

The MIDC was directed to pay Environmental Damage Compensation of Rs. 3,68,40,000 to the MPCB within eight weeks for the improvement of the CETP's functioning.

Aryavart Foundation vs M/S Lote Parshuram Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.8

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 44 of 2023 (WZ)

¶6

Aryavat Foundation ….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Cooperative Socity Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

…. Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 01.07.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : Mr. Raj Panjawani, Senior Advocate, i/b and with Mr. Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate

¶13

Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along with Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3 Mr. Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate, i/b and with Mr. Navdeep Vora, Advocate for R-4 Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-6

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this Original Application, the applicant has raised an issue relating to respondent No.1 – M/s Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Cooperative Society Ltd, running a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (“hereinafter referred to as “CETP”), which is discharging untreated effluent in Sonpatra river through a leaked pipeline as it has failed to provide full-fledged leakage proof pipeline with safety and preventive measures, which was observed by respondent No.2 – MPCB in its show-cause notice dated 14.10.2022. The CETP inlet is found to have Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) on higher side. This Application was

¶16

Page 1 of 15

¶17

admitted by us vide order dated 17.04.2023 and a direction was issued to issue notice to the respondents. By the same order, we had constituted a Joint Committee as well, which has submitted its report, annexed at pages 254 to 280 of the paper-book, relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow:

“

Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15

Respondent No.1 – M/s Lote Parshuram Co-operative Society Ltd./Project Proponent has filed its reply-affidavit dated 21.11.2023 on 29.11.2023, wherein it is submitted that it was in existence from year 2000 and at present, there are 228 members (78 Discharging Members, 15 ZLD members, 135 other members) of respondent No.1 – Society and it is operating and managing the CETP in Lote Parshuram MIDC. The members of respondent No.1 – Society sought to construct, build and operate a CETP having capacity of 4.5 MLD in the year

¶25

Page 7 of 15

¶26

The decision was taken to upgrade and expand the said CETP from 4.5 MLD to 10 MLD and the project was completed in the year 2018. Respondent No.1 was operating and managing the said CETP until 2018 and thereafter, respondent No.4 – MIDC had taken over its operation and management and the same was handed over to respondent No.4 – M/s Acquachem Environment Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (not a party to this proceeding). Respondent No.1 received valid Consent to Operate (CTO) dated 29.03.2023, which is latest one and annexed at pages 289 to 300 of the paper-book. The said CTO is valid upto 31.12.2028. In this CTO, at page 291 of the paper-book, under Terms & conditions for compliance of Water Pollution Control in clause (1) (B)(i), following is stated:

¶27

“ (i) All Large & Medium Scale Units irrespective of the quantity of effluent will have to achieve the standards as prescribed in the letter of Consent issued to them individually under the Water (P & CP) Act 1981, Hazardous Waste (M&H) Amendment thereto before discharging the effluent into CETP. ”

¶28

At page 293, under Note, following condition is given :

¶29

“If the CETP is not able to achieve the outlet parameters, then all the members and the said Society would be individually and jointly responsible and liable for legal actions under the provisions of section47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. ”

¶30

Having drawn our attention to the above, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that because of operation of the CETP having been taken over by respondent No.4 - MIDC, the whole responsibility

¶31

Page 8 of 15

¶32

of making payment of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) lies upon respondent No.4 – MIDC.

¶33

Respondent No.4 – MIDC has filed its affidavit-in-reply dated 07.07.2023, wherein it is submitted that it has developed Lote Parshuram Industrial Area in the year 1986, which has chemical units and has facilitated and provided all basic infrastructure such as road, water supply scheme, effluent collection and disposal scheme, street lights etc. The CETP is operated by specific dedicated SPV “Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-operative Society Ltd.” (respondent No.1). MIDC has facilitated the collection of payments from the member industries of Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-operative Society Ltd and payment is made to CETP operator. The MPCB issued direction under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to MIDC to operate and maintain the CETP of respondent No.1 Society. The MIDC does not own the said Society even today. All the assets belong to respondent No.1. The MIDC has no control over it. IT is further mentioned that effluent is collected and analysed by respondent No.1 Society and only if it conforms to the inlet standard specified in the Consent to Operate, then it will be allowed to be admitted in the CETP. An agency has been appointed for operating CETP of respondent No.1 Society and its operation and maintenance are as per the agreed terms. The MIDC does not have special expertise in the field of effluent treatment. The CETP scheme has been upgraded and approved by NEERI and MPCB. The shock loads due to highly polluted effluent beyond the inlet standards, if not controlled by the members of respondent No.1

¶34

Page 9 of 15

¶35

Society, then it will upset biological process in the CETP. If respondent No.1 – Society and MPCB knew the defaulter industries, they ought to have stopped such defaulting industries.

¶36

Additional Affidavit-in-reply dated 23.11.2023 has been filed by respondent No.4 – MIDC, wherein objections have been recorded against the Joint Committee report, which has suggested imposition of EDC of Rs.3,68,40,000/- to be levied from the MIDC. In the said affidavit, it is further stated that the MIDC is operating CETP as per the directions of the MPCB under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The MIDC itself is not generating any effluent, rather it is only a facilitator for providing road, electricity, water supply, etc. to the industries in the MIDC. Merely because MIDC is operating the CETP through an expert agency under the directives given by MPCB, MIDC does not become a polluter if the member industries of respondent No.1 are not discharging their effluent as per the inlet norms of CETP. They should be treated to be defaulters. Further it is mentioned that the Joint Committee has concluded in paragraph 7.7 that analysis of the results of the sediments for the analysed parameter show that the concentration of the parameters/pollutants are below the Screening Level (based on the Canadian CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines) and therefore potential risks to human health or the environment are not likely to occur and no further investigation and assessment is needed .” Yet the Joint Committee proceeded to recommend the environmental compensation on the basis of the past performance of CETP when MPCB itself has declared Lote Parshuram CETP as a non-performing CETP. As regards

¶37

Page 10 of 15

¶38

the number of days of violation, it has been clarified by the MPCB that out of total 614 days of non-compliance, 268 days of year 2018 should have been deducted. But we are not inclined to accept this argument. Because as per the submissions of learned counsel for MPCB, five years’ period is also counted by them for claiming the period of default from the date of filing of Original Application. Since this Original Application has been filed on 10.04.2023 under Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and five years’ period prior thereto will come to 10.04.2018. So, the calculation made by the MPCB seems to be correct as far as number of days of default are concerned.

¶39

Additional reply dated 14.02.2024 has been filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that respondent No.4 – MIDC is operating the CETP plant and hence to control the inlet quality of effluent is the responsibility of respondent No.4 along with expert agency. Each member unit is under lock & key and before opening the lock, the contractor M/s Aquachem Engineers, on behalf of respondent No.4, has taken the samples and also done analysis in the lab. Therefore, respondent No.4 has full authority to check the samples. Further it is mentioned that respondent No.4 and its expert agency are maintaining the inlet and outlet quality of CETP. If respondent No.4 is not able to maintain the parameters, why they have accepted the proposal to run the CETP. After taking over the CETP, there is improvement in inlet as well as outlet quality. Respondent No.4 knows the industries which are discharging substandard effluent and therefore, they should have

¶40

Page 11 of 15

¶41

informed about the defaulting industries to respondent No.2 – MPCB, which has not been done in the case in hand.

¶42

From the side of respondent No.2 – MPCB, an affidavit-in-reply dated 13.10.2023 has been filed, wherein it is submitted that the answering respondent is carrying out weekly sampling at the inlet and outlet of CETP. Five years’ (April, 2018 to April, 2023) period is considered for verification of violations. The CETP intermittently complied with the parameters in between the mentioned period. The performance of the CETP has improved since year 2020 due to upgradation work. For a total of five years, analysis report was considered to assess environmental damage and accordingly, it has calculated the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) to the tune of Rs..3,68,40,000/-. Orally, it is submitted by learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi, representing respondent No.2 – MPCB that this calculation of EDC is made on the basis of guidelines laid down in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶43

Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors . It is further mentioned in this affidavit that the answering respondent had requested respondent No.1 to submit a list of defaulter industries, who have violated the consent norms and discharged substandard quality effluent into CETP. But respondent No.1 failed to submit the said list. The answering respondent has taken action against the defaulting industries, which violated the consent norms. The directions have been issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and

¶44

Page 12 of 15

¶45

Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary) Rules, 2008, as amended in 2016.

¶46

Respondent No.2 – MPCB has filed rejoinder-affidavit dated 14.05.2024 to the reply-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 – MIDC, wherein it is submitted that respondent No.1 – Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-operative Society Ltd handed over the CETP to MIDC in the year 2018 vide letter dated 06.03.2017. Since the operation of the CETP before 2018 was not upto the mark, the MPCB has directed the MIDC to operate and maintain the CETP. The MPCB is only regulatory Authority for Water, Air, Hazardous Waste and Noise Monitoring, Bio-Medical Wastes as well as Municipal Solid Wastes, etc. It is an admitted fact that MIDC has engaged the expert agency – M/s Aquachem Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for handling the operation and maintenance of CETP. Therefore, the MIDC and the said agency have to oversee the functioning of the CETP within the applicable parameters. The MIDC is the facility developer and also provider of all infrastructure facilities such as road, water supply scheme, effluent collection, water drainage system, street lights and CETP, etc. It is stated that the CETP has violated the discharge standards as prescribed by the answering respondent and hence, the period of violation was considered from the years 2018 to 2023 and accordingly, the EDC has been imposed.

¶47

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that respondent No.4 – MIDC is trying to take a stand that they are only facilitator of the facility and not the polluter. In fact, the pollution is being done by member industries of

¶48

Page 13 of 15

¶49

the CETP – respondent No.1. Merely because the maintenance of the said CETP is being looked after by the MIDC does not mean the entire responsibility of making violation of CETP should be thrust upon it. Further it is argued that list of the defaulting industries was provided to respondent No.1, which is stated in paragraph No.15 of their affidavit dated 23.11.2023, but the action against the defaulting industries was to be taken by respondent No.2 – MPCB and not respondent No.1. It appears that the list has been wrongly provided to respondent No.1 instead providing it to respondent No.2 – MPCB. From now onwards, in such a situation, names of the defaulting industries should be forwarded to respondent No.2 – MPCB for action to be taken against such industries.

¶50

It is an admitted fact by the MIDC – respondent No.4 that they have engaged a private expert agency to operate and maintain the CETP in question. All the member industries have lock and key issued, they have exclusive control over the CETP and are in a position to check the parameters at inlet and outlet and could very well assess as to who are the defaulting industries.

¶51

As regards calculation and imposition of EDC amount, it is to be reckoned on the basis of analysis report for a total of five years, which has been taken into considered by the MPCB and as per the principles/guidelines laid down in the case of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti (supra), the EDC to the tune of Rs.3,68,40,000/- has been calculated, which, according to us, has been rightly calculated and imposed. The said amount of EDC of Rs.3,68,40,000/- has to be paid by the MIDC – respondent No.4 being the sole incharge of the

¶52

Page 14 of 15

¶53

operation of CETP. If the contractor of CETP was not in a position to look after the maintenance of the CETP, the same could have been changed by the MIDC having full control over it. Therefore, we direct that the said amount of EDC of Rs.3,68,40,000/- shall be paid by respondent No.4 – MIDC to respondent No. 2 – MPCB within eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order, and amount shall be used for improvement in functioning of CETP.

¶54

As regards the hearing not having been given by the MPCB to the MIDC in respect of the calculation of EDC, in our view, this Tribunal has given finding only with respect to default made as to the parameters prescribed by the MPCB and correctness of the calculation of EDC amount made by the MPCB and therefore, no prejudice is caused on that count to the MIDC.

¶55

A report of compliance as to the above directions shall be submitted by respondent No.2 – MPCB to this Tribunal within six months from the date of uploading of this order.

¶56

With above directions, we dispose of this Original Application.

¶57

No order as to costs.

¶58

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶59

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶60

July 01, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2023 (WZ) npj

¶61

Page 15 of 15

Aryavart Foundation v. M/S Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryavart Foundation v. M/S Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-Operative Society Ltd.

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

News Item Appearing in Express News Service Dated 05.12.2023 Titled Change Location of Sewage Treatment Plant from CoimbatoreS Ukkadam Over 100 Residents Stage Stir vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in the Matter of Sewage Mixed in Theppakulam Sivagangai District Based on Dinamalar Daily Sivagangai Edition Dated 1ST January 2024 vs the District Collector Sivagangai

Jaywant Jotiba Patil vs Lalchand Tobacco Products

Mahendran vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Subhash Datta vs State of West Bengal

News Item Titled Fish Kill Spotlights Pangs of Periyar Appearing in the Hindu Dated 07 06 2024 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Regional Office

T v Rajan vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Siddesh Salgaonkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Paras Enterprises vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Prakash Vagadiya vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Mr. Tanaji Ruikar vs M/S Narsinha Stone Crusher & Crush Sand

News Item Titled Six Killed in Explosion at Firecracker Unit Near Nagpur Appearing in the Hindu Dated 13.06.2024 vs Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (Peso) through Its Administrative Head

Shri Ravindra Laxman Barhate vs Pune Muncipal Corporation